THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 12788 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K.S.R.Murthy, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, the Learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioners herein claim to be the absolute owners of the property bearing D.No.9-208, comprising of plot Nos.26 and 27 in Sy.Nos.4/4A, 4/B of Gopalapatnam Village, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. It is their case that their aunt Smt. Seeram Padmavathi had purchased the property by way of registered sale deed dated 26.8.1971; she was in possession of the said property till her death i.e., 9.8.1998; during her life time she had executed a registered will dated 7.2.1998 bequeathing the said property to the petitioners; the step children of their aunt, and three others, had filed O.S.No.764 of 1999, before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking a declaration that the will executed on 7.2.1998 by the petitioners’ aunt was false and fabricated; that the plaint schedule property was the self-acquired property of her in-laws; and she had died intestate leaving them (step children of the petitioner’s aunt) as her legal heirs and successors to the plaint schedule property; and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration. Reference is also made to another suit in O.S.No.710 of 2010 filed by the step children of the petitioners’ aunt claiming the schedule property through another will. The petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.764 of 1999 had executed a registered power of attorney-cum-general power of attorney (GPA) in favour of the second respondent herein; basing on the GPA the second respondent had submitted an application to the first respondent seeking approval of the building plan for fresh construction after demolishing the existing building; having came to know of the same, the petitioners had submitted a representation to the first respondent on 22.10.2009 requesting that they be given a personal hearing before orders were passed on the application submitted by the second respondent seeking grant of building permission; and the said representation is pending as on date. The petitioners’ grievance is that no orders have been passed thereon. Sri K.S.R. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, since there is a serious dispute with regards the title of the persons who had given a GPA in favour of the second respondent, the first respondent – Corporation should defer grant of building permission till the title dispute was resolved in the Civil Suit. Learned Counsel seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law. No provision, under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as extended to Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, which provides for a personal hearing being given to a person contesting the application seeking building permission, has been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court is, however, saved the trouble of examining whether an opportunity of personal hearing can be given before such a representation is disposed of as Sri .N.Ranga Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, would fairly state that the first respondent – Corporation would consider and pass orders on the petitioners’ representation, in accordance with law, if need be, after putting the second respondent on notice in this regard. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the first respondent – Corporation to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 22.10.2009, in accordance with law, before the application submitted by the second respondent, for grant of building permission, is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 08-6-2010 Note: C.C. in one week B/o Usd/asp