THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11761 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are sons of late Md. Moulana Saheb. A plot of 546 yards in Sy.No.773 of Suryapet Town was purchased by Moulana Saheb, in1987, and he constructed a house, comprising of four rooms, on part of the land, after obtaining permission from the Suryapet Municipality, the 1st respondent herein, on 07-05-1991. Moulana Saheb died on 06-04-1996, leaving behind him, his wife, two sons, the petitioners herein, and two daughters. The daughters are said to have been married, and that the property is being enjoyed by the petitioners and their mother. Moulana Saheb had three brothers; the 2nd respondent, being one of them. The 1st respondent effected mutation, vis-à-vis the property by registering the petitioners, as well as their paternal uncles, including the 2nd respondent, as owners of respective parts, as legal heirs of late Moulana Saheb. On an application submitted by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent accorded permission on 08-11-2006, to construct a house. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned permission was accorded, on the strength of mutation effected in favour of the 2nd respondent, and that the mutation was set aside by this Court, in its order dated 29-11-2006 in Writ Petition No.24370 of 2006. It is urged that a suit is also pending, and in that view of the matter, the permission cannot be sustained in law. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He states that, as one of the legal heirs of late Moulana Saheb, he is entitled for a share, and the permission was accorded to him, duly recognizing his right. He made extensive reference to various proceedings, that have ensued, after the matter was remanded by this Court, through orders in Writ Petition No.24370 of 2006. Reference is also made to O.S.No.140 of 2006, filed by the petitioners, their mother and sisters. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. There is a serious dispute between the wife of late Moulana Saheb, on the one hand, and his brothers, on the other hand, as regards the succession to a plot of land, purchased him. Moulana Saheb alone was registered as the owner of the property in the Municipal records. After his death, not only the names of the wife and children of Moulana Saheb, but also of brothers were entered as the legal heirs. On the strength of such mutation, the 1st respondent accorded permission to the 2nd respondent on 08-11-2006. The petitioners came to know about such mutation, only when the 2nd respondent filed a caveat in the Civil Court. The mother of the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24370 of 2006, questioning the mutation proceedings dated 24-04-2006. On the sole ground that the effected parties were not issued notice, this Court allowed the writ petition. The permission to the petitioners was accorded, at a time, when the mutation was intact. It is brought to the notice of the Court, that after the matter was remanded by this Court to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal, to effect mutation, certain orders were passed and a writ petition is pending, in relation thereto. However, once it is emerges that the permission was accorded on the basis of an entry in the register, which in turn, came to be set aside, the permission cannot be sustained in law. In case the rights of the 2nd respondent are recognized finally, either in a Civil Court, or in the proceedings under the A.P. Municipalities Act (for short ‘the Act’), he can certainly renew his request for grant of permission, on the strength of an application filed by him, already. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the permission dated 08-11-2006, accorded in favour of the 2nd respondent, is set aside. It is, however, directed that, in case the rights of the 2nd respondent are finally decided, vis-à-vis the property, the application made by him shall be acted upon, under Section 455 of the Act, on payment of fee, once again. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19-11-2009. KO