IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6974 of 2008 Between: 1 Khaja Moinuddin Khan S/o.Mahaboob Khan R/o.94/C, S.R.nagar Hyderabad 2 Lokala Sobhanadri Rao S/o.L.Chiranjeevi Rao R/o.8-3-167/D 15, Kalayan Nagar, S.R.nagar Hyderabad 3 Mrs.L.Geetha Goud W/o.L.Shobhanadri Rao R/o.8-3-167/D 15, Kalyan nagar, S.R.Nagar Hyderabad 4 Miss.L.Sailaja D/o.L.Shobhanadri Rao R/o.8-3-167/D 15, Kalyan nagar, S.R.Nagar Hyderabad 5 Mrs.L.Sujatha W/o.L.Madhusudhan Rao R/o.8-3-167/D 15, Kalyan nagar, S.R.Nagar Hyderabad 6 M.Padmaja W/o. Sivaramakrishna R/o.Plot No.782 near Vasanth Nagar Bagathsingh Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally, Hyderabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Attapur, R.R. District 3 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep.by its Vice Chairman, Besides City Civil Court, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the notices dated 2.6.2007 in Lr.No.G/2174/2007, 1.6.2007, in LR.No.H/2056/07, 18.6.2007, in LR.No.G/2287/2007 11.6.2007 in LR .No.2199/07 7.6.2007 in Lr.No.G/2160/2007 and 11.6.2007 in Lr.No.G/2198/2008 in respectively issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the building permissions to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the grant of building permission to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the grant of building permission to the petitioners in the light of the order dated 2.3.2007 passed in WP.No.3973/2007. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P. Shiv Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Smt. Kalpana Ekbote The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and with her consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question a series of notices issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rejecting the application submitted for undertaking construction in the site in Survey No. 44/1, Miyapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was not very sure about the title of the petitioners over this piece of land and they also suspect that there could be a genuine dispute with regard to the title over the property. It will be appropriate at this stage to notice that the special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad had examined this very question of the title and found that the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have valid and subsisting title. In fact, that was the subject matter of consideration in an earlier round of litigation before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3973, 3974 and 4024 of 2007 which were disposed of on 2nd March 2007 by a Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, another learned Single Judge had also considered somewhat similar question that has been raised in the present case, in Writ Petition No.12861 of 2007. By his judgment dated 16th November 2007, the learned Judge had disposed of the matter in the following terms: “ Having regard to the fact that no injunction is subsisting against the petitioner or the society from whom the petitioner had purchased the property, I do not see any justification for respondent No.1 to reject the building permission merely for the reason that a land grabbing case is pending in respect of the land of which the petitioner’s land forms part. In the event the LGC goes against the petitioner and the society, it is always open to the State to recover the property. Therefore, in the absence of any legal bar for granting building permission subject to the petitioner satisfying the requirements of Section 428 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the petitioner is entitled to grant of building permission. However, in the event of LGC case, which is pending before the Special Court, being decided against him, the petitioner shall not claim equities or compensation for cost of the building constructed by him. The respondents shall accordingly consider the application of the petitioner for granting building permission.” In view of this, the notices issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, cannot be sustained and the writ solicited is liable to be issued directing the respondents to entertain the application submitted for construction of the building on the land in question. Therefore, the writ as solicited is issued subject to the same terms as are imposed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12861 of 2007. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 1st April, 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}