THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 20368 AND 20494 OF 2010 Dated: 27.08.2010 IN WRIT PETITION No. 20368 OF 2010 Between: Dr. G.Padmasree ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad., rep. by its Commissioner and others .....RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION No. 20494 OF 2010 Between: Radha Kishan Thakur ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 20368 AND 20494 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: As the parties to these writ petitions are common, they are heard together. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.20368 of 2010. The petitioner in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 claims to have purchased plot No.89 in HUDA HEIGHTS situated in T.S.No.5 (P) Block J, Ward No.12, T.S.No.14 (P) Block A, Ward No.12 of Hakimpet village (Shaikpet), Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District covered by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as Ward No.8 Block No.2. She was also granted permission to construct a residential building by the 1st respondent-Corporation by proceedings dated 20.04.2010 vide permit No.22/61-2010. While the construction was in progress, by proceedings dated 10.08.2010 the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that the permit dated 20.04.2010 granted in her favour had been kept in abeyance stating that the 4th respondent- Deepak Reddy made a representation dated 23.07.2010 enclosing a copy of the judgment dated 21.04.2010 in O.S.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, declaring the document No.453/1997 under which the plot in question was registered in the name of the petitioner as null and void. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.08.2010, W.P.No.20368 of 2010 has been filed. The 4th respondent-Deepak Reddy claims to have purchased premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/L/333/A/1 situated at MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills under a registered agreement of sale cum GPA, vide document No.4151/2006, dated 09.11.2006 from one Radha Kishan Thakur. It is alleged that the petitioner in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 attempted to interfere with his property claiming that she had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1997. On verification it was found that the property purchased by her was a different property and even the boundaries did not tally. In the circumstances, he filed O.S.No.2321 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction and the same was decreed by judgment dated 27.04.2007. He also filed O.S.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.06.1997 and the same was also decreed vide judgment dated 21.04.2010. In spite of the same, as the building permission was granted in favour of the petitioner, W.P.No.16767 of 2010 was filed seeking a Mandamus to GHMC to cancel the building permit. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 14.07.2010 directing the Corporation to pass appropriate orders as per law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Pursuant thereto, having verified the documents by order dated 10.08.2010, the Corporation had kept the building permission dated 20.04.2010 in abeyance. Alleging that in spite of the said order, the petitioner in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 was proceeding with the construction illegally, and though a complaint was made, the Corporation failed to take any action, the 4th respondent filed W.P.No.20494 of 2010. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is not disputed before this Court that O.S.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by the 4th respondent was decreed ex parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 stated that the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.2785 of 2010 for stay and having considered the said applications, the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 23.08.2010, while directing notice to the respondents, granted interim stay of the ex parte decree up to 13.09.2010. In view of the said subsequent order, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 contended that the impugned order dated 10.08.2010 under which the building permission was kept in abeyance had become redundant and therefore, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction. It is also stated that the petitioner would not claim any equities at a later stage in case her application to set aside the ex parte decree is not accepted by the Civil Court. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the order impugned in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 is not a final order. On the basis of the representation made by the 4th respondent bringing to the notice of the Corporation that the document under which the petitioner acquired title was declared null and void by the Civil Court, the building permission granted to the petitioner was merely kept in abeyance. In the circumstances, having regard to the subsequent order passed by the Civil Court staying the ex parte decree, it is for the petitioner to approach the Corporation to review the order dated 10.8.2010 and the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted. It is also relevant to notice that as per the settled principle of law whenever an objection is raised for grant of building permission on the ground of title, the Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants and building permission cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the ownership of the applicant is doubtful [vide T.RAMESHWAR v. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD[1] and HYDERABAD POTTERIES PVT. LTD. v. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD DISTRICT[2]]. Accordingly, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner in W.P.No.20368 of 2010 to make an appropriate application before the 2nd respondent seeking review of the order dated 10.08.2010. If any such application is made, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent (petitioner in W.P.No.20494 of 2010), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one week from the date of making such representation. No costs. ___________ Date: 27.08.2010 G. ROHINI, J Note: Issue CC of order in three days (B/o) Ivd [1] 2006 (5) ALT 582 [2] 2001 (3) ALT 200