THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11161 of 2008 ORDER: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-first respondent herein issued a notice dated 15.11.2007 to M/s.Deenanath & Brothers informing that they proposed to widen Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad and that the property bearing No.10-3-161/1 would be affected to an extent of 260 square yards. They offered to grant permission by extending benefits under G.O.Ms.No.483, MA, dated 24.08.1998, in addition to incur the expenditure for construction of compound wall. The petitioner claims to be a co-owner of the said property. He submitted a representation dated 20.05.2008 stating that the premises, which are in his possession, shall not be demolished without notice to him. His grievance is that no action has been taken so far and the respondents are trying to demolish the property. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is not concerned whatsoever with the property and the actual owner of the property has given consent. Respondents 2 to 4 got themselves impleaded. According to them, the petitioner has no right over the property and I.A.No.1749 of 2008 filed for temporary injunction in O.S.No.52 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, was dismissed on 14.10.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Even from a perusal of the representation made by the petitioner, it is evident that he is not claiming any exclusive rights. He claims to be a co-owner of the property. Therefore, he cannot claim exclusive ownership of any item or property. At any rate, he has already filed a suit. Much would depend upon the outcome of the suit. In case, the Civil Court recognizes his right, he can enforce the same vis-à-vis the rest of the property. At present, the Corporation cannot be prevented from proceeding with the work once the recognized owner has given his consent. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, however, observing that in case the rights of the petitioner are recognized by a Civil Court, it shall be open to him to enforce the same vis-à-vis the rest of the property. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:29.03.2011 va