IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.325 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31.03.2006 in W.P.No.362 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Municipal Corporation of Guntur, represented by its Commissioner, Guntur. .....Appellant And 1. Sri Abburi Srimannarayana Rao (died) per LR S/o.Nagabhushanam, R/o.Guntur, Guntur District. 2. Smt. Nibhanupudi Sarojini, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, R/o.1-3/27-14, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. (R-2 brought on record as LR of Deceased 1st respondent) 3. Director of Town Planning, MCH, Hyderabad. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri B. Venkataratnam Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt. A.Chaya Devi The Court passed the following: JUDGMENT: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) In this appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.362 of 2005, dated 31st March, 2006, has been challenged. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – original petitioners wanted to put up construction on their land admeasuring 875 square yards being part of Survey No.673, Old Ward No.16 (New Ward No.22), Block No.11 situated at Guntur. It is not in dispute that the original petitioners are owners of the land in question. As the appellant Municipal Corporation had refused to receive an application seeking permission to build from the original petitioners, they were constrained to file the aforestated petition. After hearing the concerned Advocates, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant Corporation to receive the application seeking permission to put up construction on the land in question and to consider the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant Municipal Corporation has approached this Court. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant Corporation has submitted that certain observations made in the order would constrain the Municipal Corporation to give sanction to the plan to be submitted by the original petitioners. In our opinion, the aforesaid apprehension is not well founded for the reason that the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant Municipal Corporation to consider the application in accordance with law. It is pertinent to note that somebody else had shown the land belonging to the original petitioners as his land and had got his layout approved. In our opinion, the land, which admittedly belonged to the original petitioners, could not have been shown by someone else as his or her land, and if the appellant Corporation had considered the land belonging to the petitioners as someone else’s land, the Corporation had committed a mistake. In that event, some action, in accordance with law, be taken against the person who had wrongly shown the land of the original petitioners as his/her land. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the said order suffers from any irregularity or illegality. The appellant Municipal Corporation is bound to pass some order on the application, which might be submitted to it. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in giving a direction to accept the application to be submitted by respondent No.2, xconsider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance law. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 10th April, 2008 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1.Two C.D. copies. ARS