IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5523 of 2004 Between: Smt.Kamala Devi Dugar, W/o.Sri N.M.Dugar, Agedabout 70 years, Household, Plot No.8, SCHB Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad-9. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.Kapra Municipality, Kapra, rep. by its Commissioner, RR District, and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of building permission, dated 21-06-2003, granted by the first respondent-Municipality in Proceeding No.BA/G1/121/2003-04, in favour of the second respondent, in exercise of powers under the Andhra Pradesh Munciipalities Act, 1965. For the disposal of this Writ Petition, various allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of this Writ Petition, and also the averments made by the respondents, in the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf, need not be mentioned. Inasmuch as the short question involved in this Writ Petition is, whether the complicated questions of title and possession of the properties can be gone into by the Municipal authorities while considering the applications for grant of building permission. In this Writ Petition, while seeking building permission, the second respondent has produced a sale deed in support of his title and after considering the same, the first respondent-Municipality has granted permission, dated 21- 06-2003. It is the case of the petitioner that civil proceedings arose with regard to the subject matter of the same property between her and vendor of the second respondent and as such, the very title derived on behalf of the second respondent is defective and building permission in respect of the very same property should not have been granted by the first respondent- Municipality. It is now very well settled that when an application is filed for grant of building permission, the Municipal authorities will have to prima facie satisfy with regard to title and possession. If complicated questions of title and possession of the property in question are involved, it is not for the Municipal authorities to probe into the matter deeply and decide the same. Merely because a suit for injunction simplicitor is decreed in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the title of the second respondent is defective. Either grant or refusal of the permission for construction will not confer or retrieve any title on the applicant, who seeks permission. In view of the supportive documents filed by the second respondent for grant of building permission, the first respondent-Municipality has rightly considered and granted the permission. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned building permission, dated 21-06- 2003, granted by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent. However, if the petitioner claims title over the same property, the same has to be considered independently without reference to the impugned permission granted by the first respondent-Municipality. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 18th August, 2009 lur