THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1602 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased a plot of 283 sq.yards in R.S.No.260, bearing Door No.13/266-1-1/A, Ward No.13, Nizampet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, on 07.05.2008. It is stated that the Tahsildar, Machilipatnam, the second respondent herein, issued ownership certificate, dated 23.12.2008 conferring eligibility on the petitioner to seek benefit under the Government’s sponsored housing scheme. The Municipality, the third respondent herein, in turn is said to have assessed the property to tax. On the representation made by the neighbours of the petitioner, the Municipality had withdrawn the assessment. The second respondent also issued proceedings, dated 16.12.2009 cancelling the ownership certificate, dated 23.12.2008. The petitioner submits that on the one hand, he filed O.S.No.470 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, against his neighbours for the relief of injunction and the neighbours on the other hand filed O.S.No.190 of 2009 in the same Court and O.S.No.303 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for the relief of declaration against the petitioner vis-à-vis the said property. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings that are issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall have the effect upon the pending suits and are contrary to law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner, no doubt, purchased a plot of land referred to above. The title of the petitioner vis-à-vis the plot and his right to enjoy the same did not depend upon the ownership certificate issued by the second respondent or the assessment made by the third respondent. On receiving complaint from the neighbours of the petitioner alleging that the plot is nothing but part of the road, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have cancelled the proceedings initiated or certificates issued by them earlier. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any serious detriment vis-à-vis his right and title. Now, that the suits are pending, the rights of the parties are to be determined independent of the initial or subsequent proceedings issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even for interlocutory relief, the petitioner can file applications before the trial Court duly impleading the concerned authorities or individuals. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, observing that the impugned proceedings do not have any effect upon the title vis-à-vis the land, be it in favour of the petitioner or otherwise and the same shall be determined by the concerned Courts independent of the proceedings that are impugned in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 1st FEBRUARY, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni