IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4708 of 2009 Between: 1 T.Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. D.no.40/814, Srinviasa Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 P.Naga Raju, S/o. Late P. Lakshminarayana, R/o. H.No.46/266, Budhavarapeta, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 K.J.Reddy S/o. K.Nrayana Reddy, R/o. D.No.78/8-A-12-2-29, Mayuri Residency, Near Vitalnagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 Smt. K.Mani Reddy, W/o.K.J.Reddy, R/o. D.No.78/8-A-12-2-29, Mayuri Residency, Near Vitalnagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Kurnool Municipality Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool district, Rep by its Commissioner, 2 The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring the Endorsement B.A.No.27/08/G-3 dated 22.11.2008 issued by the 1st respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent herien to grnat approval for constructionof residential G+2 Floors in Sy.No.123/A of Srinviasa Nagar, Kurnool in favour of the petitioenrs No.3 and 4 herien and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SREE RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.SREEDHAR The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed assailing the action of the 1st respondent- Corporation in rejecting the application dated 14.11.2008 of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for permission to construct a building, by his Endorsement dated 22.11.2008. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 claim to be the owners and possessors of an extent of 1146 Sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 123/A situated in Srinivasa Nagar, Kurnoor having purchased the same from petitioner Nos.1 and 2 under a registered sale deed dated 22.11.2008. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had purchased the same from one S.V. Nagireddy and V.Thimma Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2005. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 approached the 1st respondent-Corporation with an application seeking permission for construction of residential G+2 floor building, but the 1st respondent, by his Endorsement dated 22.11.2008 rejected the application on the ground that the 2nd respondent-District Collector, vide his letter dated 22.11.2006 instructed him to take immediate action, as recommended by the House Committee in its interim report on the Christian Properties as per the instructions of the C.C.L.A., A.P., Hyderabad. The action of the 1st respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard Sri V.Sreeranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Sreedhar, learned Standing Counsel for Kurnool Municipal Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the material placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and Another[1] wherein it is held as follows: “The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objection(s) whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purpose of granting permission and nothing more.” The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the writ appeal in W.A. No. 1096 of 2001 filed against the above decision was disposed by a Division Bench observing that the Commissioner while acting under Section 429(1)(a) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act read with relevant building byelaws acts as a statutory authority and required to make decision on relevant material and facts and it is not legally permissible for such authority to base its decisions only on one piece of relevant material and to exclude other relevant material. Relying on the above decision, he contended that the Commissioner cannot adjudicate title disputes, and prayed that the impugned Endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent may be quashed. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly conceded that as per the judgment of the Division Bench as stated supra, the 1st respondent- Corporation cannot decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. Hence, following the above order, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the Endorsement dated 22.11.2008 and the 1st respondent- Corporation, Kurnool Municipal Corporation is directed to reconsider the application made by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking permission to construct a building by examining the whole issue in the light of the above-cited case, if the application is in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules made thereunder. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th March, 2009 bcj [1] 2001(3) ALT 200