HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WVMP.No.2657 of 2007 and WRIT PETITION No.16514 of 2007 21.01.2008 Between: Sara Mehidi … Petitioner AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WVMP.No.2657 of 2007 and WRIT PETITION No.16514 of 2007 ORDER: This is an application filed by the District Collector, Hyderabad to vacate order, dated 02.08.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.16514 of 2007. At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 22/23.12.2006 passed by respondent No.1 whereby he rejected the building application filed by the petitioner for building permission in respect of plot No.46 comprised in Survey No.74/9, East Maredpally, Secunderabad as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. On 02.08.2007, this Court passed the following order: “Notice before admission. The impugned order of rejection dated 22/23-12-2006 passed by the first respondent shows that in spite of the valid sale deed in favour of the petitioner, referring to some proceedings initiated under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Records of Regulation and that the enquiry is going on under Atiyath Enquiries Act, 1952 the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission is rejected. Prima facie, the grounds mentioned are not tenable. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that respondents are prepared to consider the matter afresh, subject to filing of an undertaking which was filed in similar lines, pursuant to the orders of this Court that they will not claim any equity in the event of the Government succeeding their claim in L.G.C.No.167 of 1997, which is pending before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. In that view of the matter, the respondents shall forthwith reconsider the proposals of the petitioner for grant of building permission, subject to filing an affidavit by the petitioner by way of undertaking that he will not claim any equities afterwards. The petitioner to file an affidavit within a period of one week from today. On such filing of the undertaking, the respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter. Post after three weeks.” Smt. G.Jyothikiran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above reproduced order passed by this Court worked itself out with respondent No.1 sanctioning the building permission on receiving the affidavit filed by the petitioner that she will not claim any equity in the event the Government succeeds in L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 pending before the Special Court under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, however, states that since the land belongs to the Government and L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 is filed against the petitioner, interests of the Government would be affected, if the petitioner constructs a building. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by this Court on 02.08.2007, in my considered view, settles equities between the parties namely, the petitioner and the Government. At present, Land Grabbing Case is pending but so far, there is no declaration by any Court of competent jurisdiction that the land belongs to the Government. By mere construction of a building, the petitioner’s claim over the ownership does not receive any recognition. This precisely is the reason why, this Court evidently directed the petitioner to file an affidavit undertaking that she will not claim any equity in the event of Government’s success in the pending L.G.C. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that no further orders need be passed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by reiterating order, dated 02.08.2007 passed by this Court. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.21010 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2657 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st JANUARY, 2008. kvni