IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11698 of 2001 Between: Chinna Madhavuni Dharmender Raju, S/o. Raghupathi Raju, R/o. 2-10-203, Jyothi Nagar Locality, Karimnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Council Karimnagar through its Commissioner in Office, Opp. Dist. Bus Stand, Karimnagar. 2 Goli Laxma Reddy, S/o. Raj Reddy, R/o. H,.No. 4-6-43, Dwarakanagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 may be pleased to ; 1) pass an order or orders more secifically in the nature of writ of mandamus or; ii) like any other appropriate writ by the invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India declaring the act of respondent in making interference in the construction work of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principales of natural justice and ffecting right tolife and property of the petitioner and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR.P.V.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of house site admeasuring 733.33 square yards in Sy.No.1420/A situated at Indira Nagar locality of Karimnagar having purchased the same from his vendor on 14.02.2001 by registered sale deed, he has applied permission for construction of the building before the first respondent on 05.04.2001 and accordingly, the first respondent collected a sum of Rs.18,020/- towards building permission fee, but no permission has been granted. It is stated that there was neither refusal nor approval of the building permission. On the other hand, the petitioner started construction of the building under the deemed permission after the lapse of 60 days from the date of his filing application and therefore, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus not to interfere in the construction work of the building. Admittedly, this Court has not granted any interim order. A counter has been filed by the first respondent and the interested person who is also claiming the right and title over the said property is also impleaded as second respondent. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner has applied for building permission on 05.04.2001 based on the sale deed and paid the betterment charges, conversion fee, vacant land tax charges and development charges etc. But, in the meanwhile, the second respondent filed objection petition stating that he is the actual owner of the said property and he also filed suit O.S.No.26 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.188 of 2001 and therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected on 20.04.2001. In view of the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for permission for construction of building, the petitioner is not entitled to make any construction of the house. As there is a dispute with regard to the title of the property, it is open for the respective parties to resolve their disputes before the civil Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rejection of building permission by the municipality is illegal and admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the same order. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:03.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VVS}