THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.10848 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner purchased a plot of 419 square yards forming part of survey No.57 of Hydernagar Village, Kukatpally Municipality, in two bits covered by sale deeds, dated 29.11.2005 and 08.12.2005. He submitted an application to the then Kukatpalli Municipality, which has now become part of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, seeking permission to construct. Permission was accorded on 03.03.2006 and the building is said to have been constructed in accordance with the permission. The 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.3159 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of 700 square yards of land. The trial Court initially passed an order of status quo. The petitioner contested the matter and the order of status quo, with reference to his property, was vacated, on 11.11.2006. The 2nd respondent filed a representation, on 15.11.2006, before the 1st respondent, with a request to cancel the construction permission accorded to the petitioner. A show cause notice, dated 06.02.2007, was issued, narrating the relevant facts. Through order dated 01.03.2007, the 1st respondent revoked the construction permission accorded to the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit, stating the circumstances under which the impugned order was passed. It is stated that, once there exists civil dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, they ought to have resolved it and the permission accorded during the pendency of the suit, cannot be sustained. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was accorded permission on 03.03.2006. It appears that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit, being O.S.No.3159 of 2006, filed by the 2nd respondent or the order passed in I.A.No.4980 of 2006. Soon after he came to know about it, he filed an application to vacate. As a result the I.A. was dismissed on 11.10.2006. The 2nd respondent filed application before the 1st respondent on 15.11.2006 i.e. four days after the order of status quo in her favour was vacated. The 1st respondent issued show cause notice and the petitioner submitted explanation. Detailed reference was made to various proceedings. Except stating that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the 1st respondent did not controvert even a single fact pleaded by the petitioner. The rights of the 2nd respondent, if any, are to be established in the suit which she has already instituted. The permission accorded to the petitioner as of now does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the permission accorded to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of O.S.No.3159 of 2006. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.03.2011. GJ