IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 1703 of 2002 BETWEEN: Gandreddy Apparao, S/o late Appala Naidu, R/o Dr.No.11-60, Main Road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Visakhapatnam urban Development Authority Rep. by its Secretary, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam District. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Direction directing the Respondents to grant building permission to the petitioner in the land measuring an extent of 138.82 Sq. mtrs. Situated in Plot No. 5, sy.No.12/1 (C) of Buchiraju Palem, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District by declaring the endorsement of the 1st Respondent in BA No. 12048/01/ACP-III, dated: 22-11-2001 as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS. V. PREETI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant building permission to the petitioner in the land measuring an extent of 138.82 sq. meters situated in Plot No. 5, Sy.No.12/1 (C) of Buchiraju Palem, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District by declaring the endorsement of the ﬁrst respondent in BA No. 12048/01/ACP-III, dated 22.11.2001 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been ﬁled stating that the petitioner has already ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the Vacation Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam and obtained status quo order in I.A.No.111 of 2002 by order dated 17.05.2002. 3. If that be so, I am of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioner to pursue parallel proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the suit for payment of compensation if the land is required for public purpose. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 1, 2008 DSK