IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28801 of 2008 Between: A.Ravinder ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others. .....RESPONDENTS Order: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 150 sq.yards situated in Survey No.66/7 of Mansoorabad Revenue Village, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 02.01.1986. It is his case that the third respondent in January, 2002, with an intention to grab the subject land, has demolished two room existing in the subject land and constructed compound wall. Questioning the same, the petitioner claims to have filed L.G.O.P.No.706 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Through his order, dated 05.03.2003, the District Judge has decreed the LGOP directing the third respondent to deliver possession of the subject land and further directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District (East Division) to execute the decree. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5, with forged and fabricated documents, filed L.G.Appeal No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, with abnormal delay of 590 days, claiming that they purchased the subject land from the third respondent. The Special Court, without going into the merits of the case, has remitted the matter to the Special Tribunal/District Judge, Ranga Reddy, on the ground that the report under Rule 6 was not called for and the publication under Section 7 was not published, which was numbered as L.G.O.P. (Sr).No.8380 of 2007 and the same is pending. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 are making constructions in the subject land, through the sixth respondent, without obtaining necessary permission from respondents 1 and 2 and in spite of several representations/objections being filed by the petitioner, no action has been taken by respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. On 30.12.2008, when the matter came up for admission, while directing the petitioner to take notice on respondents 3 to 6, this Court directed that the constructions made shall be subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, the sixth respondent moved W.V.M.P.No.915 of 2009, along with a counter, seeking to vacate the said interim order, dated 30.12.2008. In the counter, the sixth respondent has denied the allegations made by the petitioner and has categorically stated that after obtaining necessary permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 29.12.2008, it is making the constructions in the subject land. The learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has also produced a copy of the Building Permit Order, dated 29.12.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC and Sri N.Harinath Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. Perused the material on record and also the Building Permit Order, dated 29.12.2008. At the outset, it is to be noted that the matter is ceased of by the Land Grabbing Tribunal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the constructions carried on by the unofficial respondents in the subject land, he has to file appropriate application before the Land Grabbing Tribunal, where the matter is pending with regard to title of the same. In this writ petition, the main grievance of the petitioner is that without obtaining necessary permission from the Corporation, the unofficial respondents are making constructions in the subject land. However, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has produced Building Permit Order, dated 29.12.2008, which clearly indicates that the Corporation has granted permission to make constructions in the subject land. Hence, the relief as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Land Grabbing Tribunal, where the title dispute with regard to the subject land is pending, seeking appropriate directions. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:05.10.2009 VGB