IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.6503 of 2002 Between: M/s.Sri Vishwa Brahmana Anjaneya Swamy Trust, reptd., By its Managing Trustee-Sri Yelloji Munisekhara Chary, S/o.late Munaswamy Achary, R/o.11-1-315, Gandhi road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. … Petitioner AND Tirupati Municipality, reptd., by its Commissioner, Tirupati, Chittoor District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri I.Naveen Kumar or Sri M.Dorai Raj. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.I. Newton for R.1; and Sri T.Narasimhachary for Sri P.Gangarami Reddy. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6503 of 2002 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 23-5-2001 issued by the Tirupati Municipality (respondent No.1 herein), whereby the application for sanctioning of building plans submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. Heard Sri I.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.I.Newton, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri T.Narasimha Chary, representing Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Tirupaty Urban Development Authority (respondent No.2 herein). A perusal of the impugned endorsement shows that the application of the petitioner for sanction of building permission was rejected mainly on two grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner has not filed documents to prove its ownership; and (2) that the building plans submitted by the petitioner are contrary to the Master Plan Proposal and Building Regulations and Rules. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the first ground of rejection cannot be found fault with. Unless the petitioner shows its prima facie title to the property, over which the constructions are proposed to be made, the respondents have no legal obligation to consider the application of the petitioner for approval of building plans. With regard to the second ground of rejection, viz., that the building plans submitted by the petitioner are contrary to the Master Plan Proposals and Building Regulations and Rules, respondent No.1 has not given details whether the Master Plan has come into force or not and which are the Building Regulations and Rules that prohibit construction of the proposed building by the petitioner. On the above premises, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application to respondent No.1, along with relevant documents, including the documents of title, within a period of eight weeks from today; and on receipt of such application from the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall dispose of the same within a period of four weeks. In the event respondent No.1 decline to grant permission, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner, who will be at liberty to question the same in an appropriate Court of Law. ----------------------------- ------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 6-2-2008 MNR