THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18055 OF 2010 DATE: 03.08.2010 Between: M/s. Raja Rajeshwari Builders and Developers, Adilabad, rep. by Sri Raj Kumar, Chintawar, Managing partner, H.No.1-1-15/1/1, Shantinagar, Adilabad and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Adilabad Municipality, Adilabad, Adilabad District, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18055 OF 2010 ORDER : Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 508, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 20.10.1995, which was issued by the Government to regularize the encroachments on the Government land on payment of market value, the land in occupation of the petitioners 2 to 5 was regularized and separate deeds of conveyance were executed in favour of the petitioners on 03.10.2008 after collecting the consideration. In pursuance thereof, regular pattas were also issued on 18.04.2006 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adilabad. Thereafter, when the request of the petitioners to enter their names in the municipal records was rejected, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24293 of 2009 and batch and the same were allowed by this Court with a direction to the respondents to take steps duly taking into account the deeds of conveyance that were executed in favour of the petitioners. It is not disputed before this Court that in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.24293 of 2009 and batch mutation was already effected. It is stated that the petitioners 2 to 5 have entered into a development agreement with the 1st petitioner and thereupon the 1st petitioner made an application seeking permission for construction of a building upon the land in question. The said application was rejected by order dated 05.05.2010 on the ground that W.P.Nos.23060 of 2008 and 5687 of 2010 are pending. The petitioners were also directed not to proceed with any construction in any manner till the said writ petitions are disposed of. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality. The material placed before this Court shows that W.P.No.5687 of 2010 was filed by one Atul Pravesh Suri by way of public interest litigation seeking a declaration that the sale and execution of the conveyance deeds in favour of the petitioners 2 to 5 was arbitrary and illegal. Though the said writ petition is pending, admittedly no interim orders as such have been passed by this Court. So far as the other writ petition i.e., W.P.No.23060 of 2008 is concerned, the said writ petition was filed by the petitioners 2 to 5 themselves aggrieved by the alleged interference by the respondent-Municipality and it does not involve determination of any issue relating to the title of the petitioners’ in respect of the land in question. In the light of the above said facts borne out of the record, I am of the opinion that the pendency of the aforesaid two writ petitions does not in any manner disentitle the petitioners to seek building permission. Hence, the respondent was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners for building permission on the ground of pendency of W.P.Nos.23060 of 2008 and 5687 of 2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioners without having regard to the pendency of the said writ petitions and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 03.08.2010 Ivd