IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22956 of 2008 Between: Dr. N. Ranganayakulu S/o. Late Mahabaleswara Rao R/o. 3/1, Brodipet, Guntur presently Residing at Flat No.306 / 405, Usha Kiran Arcade, 2-2-5, Osmania University Road, Hyderabad - 500 044. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner for Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Vice Chairman, V.G.T.M. (Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Machilipatnam, Urban Development Authority) at Vijayawada Krishna District. 4 Noone Uma Devi W/o. Late Mahabaleswara Rao R/o.302, Yamini Towers, Guntur-2. .....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 any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction by declaring the action of the respondents for trying to grant building permission in favour of the 4th respondent herein in respect of House bearing No.5-25-112/2 (3/1, Brodipet, Guntur) at Guntur consequently direct the respondents herein not to give any permission to construct any building in the afore said properties in the interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.I.LAXMIKANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.B.VENKATARATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MRS.K.ARUNA, SC FOR VGTMUDA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the first respondent, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Machilipatnam Urban Development Authority appearing for the third respondent. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of respondents 1 to 3 in trying to grant building permission in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of house bearing No.5-25-112/3 (3/1) Brodipet, Guntur, without the consent of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the house in question. The said house and some other properties were bequeathed to him by his father through registered Will deed dated 25.08.1979. The fourth respondent is his mother. The petitioner is a government servant and staying at Hyderabad. His mother is staying in the said house along with his younger brother and looking after the property. His mother at the instance of his younger brother tried to grab his property, designed a plan to demolish the structures and trying to construct a shopping complex in the said property. In that connection, the fourth respondent demolished the first floor of the property and made an application before respondents 2 and 3 seeking permission for construction of shopping complex, without his knowledge and consent. Therefore, the petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3, raised objections and requested them not to give development permission to the fourth respondent or any other person with regard to the property in question, in view of the facts putforth by him. The above narrated facts clearly indicate that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his mother-fourth respondent and the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and filed suit. When the suit is pending, the Municipality cannot adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. If the petitioner has any objection for granting permission to the fourth respondent, he is at liberty to implead the Municipality also in the suit and obtain necessary orders in the civil suit. Since the petitioner has already approached the civil court and obtained injunction, there is no need to entertain the writ petition to conduct a parallel enquiry with regard to the subject matter of the suit. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 20.01.2009 va/msv