IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16432 of 2007 Between: Mula Subramanya Sarma s/o.Somanna R/o.H.No.1-292/1, Anand Nagar, Bheemaram Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND The Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal rep.by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Rejection Memo dated 14.2.2003 in Roc.No.G3-1553/2003 in BA.No.295/2002-03 issued by the respondent whereby rejecting the application dated 29.1.2003 submitted by the petitioner for grant of construction permission in respect of house site to an extent of 309.5 sq.yds covered by Sy.No.27/D situated at Shayampet village,Hanamakonda Mandal, Warangal District abutting to Hunter Road as illegla, arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner datd 29.1.2003 to grant permission for construction of a compound wall. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI D.NAGESWARA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16432 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the rejection memo in ROC.No.G3-1553/2003 in B.A.No.295/2002-03, dated 14.02.2003, issued by the Commissioner of Warangal Municipal Corporation, whereby the application filed by the petitioner on 29.01.2003 seeking permission for construction of a compound wall to the site admeasuring 309.5 sq. yards covered by Sy.No.27/D situated at Shayampet village, abutting Hunter Road, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, was rejected. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a residential site admeasuring 309.5 sq. yards covered by Sy.No.27/D situated at Shayampet village, abutting Hunter Road, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, having purchased the same from one Gunishetti Kedhari and Gunishetti Saraiah, vide registered sale deed dated 04.04.2002 registered as document No.1658 of 2002. He further submits that his vendors’ father late Sammaiah purchased the said site from one Rachamalla Bikshapathi under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.1983. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he enclosed a plan, link documents and the sale deed, along with his application to the respondent on 29.01.2003 seeking permission for construction of a compound wall to the said site, the respondent, by impugned memo dated 14.02.2003, rejected the same. The impugned memo, in fact, shows that there are some rival claims on the site in which the petitioner intended to construct the compound wall. When the petitioner asserts to have filed his application enclosing the documents in support of the title over the property in question, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent to consider such documents so as to prima facie satisfy about the title of the petitioner, but merely on the ground that there is a dispute over the subject site between two, the application of the petitioner cannot be rejected. Since the documents, in proof of the title over the subject property, stated to have been filed by the petitioner along with his application were not considered by the respondent before issuing the impugned rejection memo, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned memo issued by the respondent. Accordingly, the impugned memo, dated 14.02.2003, is set aside and the respondent Corporation is directed to consider the application dated 29.01.2003 filed by the petitioner afresh, basing on the documents filed along with the said application, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 28.04.2009 v v