HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29560 of 2010 ORDER: The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipality, 1st respondent herein, accorded permission on 27-09-2008 to the 2nd respondent enabling her to construct a building on a site of 1121 square yards of land in Block No.C/2, (K Group) in Survey No.2/1 of Allipuram Ward of the Corporation. The petitioner has referred to series of proceedings before various authorities, touching upon the dispute between him and the 2nd respondent. It is stated that when he made a complaint to the Police alleging trespass against the 2nd respondent, the matter was referred to the Revenue authorities, who inturn, confirmed his possession over the land after verification of records. He submits that even while availing the remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Revenue authorities, the 2nd respondent has applied for permission and the same was accorded. It is also brought to the notice of the of this Court that the petitioner filed O.S.No.1178 of 2010 in the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and that I.A. No.860 of 2010 filed under Order – XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 is pending. In this background, the petitioner challenges the permission accorded to the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter – affidavit stating that the petitioner has no title or possession over the land and that she is entitled to make construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The dispute raised by the petitioner is about the title and possession of the 2nd respondent over the land. It is on that premise that he challenges the permission accorded by the 1st respondent enabling the 2nd respondent to construct. It hardly needs any mention that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation does not have any power either to decide the questions of title and possession. It is only on his prima facie satisfaction that permissions are accorded. Any person aggrieved by such permission has to approach the Court of law. In the instant case, the petitioner has already instituted a suit in the Civil Court against the 2nd respondent. He can pursue the remedy by pleading necessary facts. The permission accorded by the 1st respondent cannot be treated as a source of title or approval of possession in favour of the 2nd respondent and the suit has to be decided on its own merits. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy in the suit filed by him. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 21, 2011. KTL