THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1367 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application on 16.10.2006 to the Municipal Council, Korutla, Karimnagar District, the respondent herein, with a request to permit her to construct a compound wall around a plot of 268 square yards, carved out of Survey No.166 of Korutla Village and Mandal. The petitioner stated that she became the owner thereof by virtue of a gift deed, dated 26.08.2006, executed by her father in her favour. Through notice, dated 26.10.2006, the respondent informed the petitioner that the plot in question was handed over to the then Gram Panchayat while sanctioning a layout and thereafter, it vested in the Municipality. Apart from rejecting the application for sanction of permission to construct a compound wall, the respondent required the petitioner to vacate the site. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the plot in question was part of open area/road surrounded while obtaining a layout from the Gram Panchayat in the year 1982 and thereafter, it was vested in the Municipality. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner, no doubt, was gifted the plot by her father. The Municipality, however, states that the plot is part of the open area surrendered to the Gram Panchayat by one Sri Lingaiah, who obtained layout for the land in Survey No.166. On formation of the Municipality, the land became the property of the respondent. In case the petitioner disputes this assertion, she has to file a suit for declaration of title and thereafter, pursue further steps depending on the outcome of the suit. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned notice in so far as it has rejected the application of the petitioner for permission. However, the direction issued by the respondent requiring the petitioner to vacate the land through the said notice cannot be sustained. In case the respondent wants to resume possession of the land, it has to initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of law. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed setting aside that portion of the notice which required the petitioner to surrender the possession of the plot, and upholding the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to construct compound wall. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.02.2011 kdl