THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.14248 of 2005 BETWEEN: S. Satyavathi PETITIONER And 1. Karimnagar Municipality rep. by its Commissioner, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili Counsel for the respondent No.1: Sri S. Nageswara Reddy Counsel for the respondent No.2: Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain Counsel for the respondent No.3: Sri J. Kanakaiah The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Abinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.13 gts., of land situated in S.Nos.875 and 876 of Katta Rampur village (near Giddeperamandlu Temple) Locality of Karimnagar Town. Out of the said land, respondent No.2 encroached an extent of 400 sq. yds., and started constructing a house after obtaining permission dated 25.02.2003 from the Karimnagar Municipality, the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.194 of 2003 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the said 400 sq. yds. The respondents 2 and 3 herein were impleaded as defendants in the said suit. Initially, the Court by orders dated 20.07.2003 granted injunction in I.A.No.1217 of 2003 in favour of the petitioner and the same was challenged by the respondents 2 and 3 in C.M.A.No.28 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The said order of injunction was confirmed by dismissing the appeal by orders dated 28.07.2003. The revision petition C.R.P.No.5073 of 2004 preferred against the order passed in the appeal by the said respondents was also dismissed by this Court by orders dated 26.10.2004. Thus during the pendency of the suit injunction was operating against the respondents 2 and 3. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent-municipality granted permission by orders dated 25.02.2003 permitting the 2nd respondent for construction of a house on the subject land. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 25.02.2003 as illegal and for cancellation of the construction permission granted in favour of the 2nd respondent and for removal of the illegal encroachment. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order contending that he is the owner of the subject land and the respondents 2 and 3 are not entitled to make any construction on the subject land and consequently the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for making any construction. It is contended that the 1st respondent failed to verify the basic material before granting construction permission. During the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this Court that the suit O.S.No.194 of 2003 filed by the petitioner has been decreed by judgment dated 27.09.2010. A copy of the said judgment is placed before this Court. On perusal of the same it is seen that the said suit has been decreed declaring title of the petitioner in respect of the subject land and the counter suit O.S.No.196 of 2003 filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner has been dismissed. It is therefore evident that the petitioner has established her title over the subject land. That being so, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the same and reconsider the matter as regards the construction permission granted in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation along with a copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.194 of 2003. That being so, the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the said judgment and pass appropriate orders for cancellation of construction permission granted pursuant to the orders dated 25.02.2003. The 1st respondent shall do so as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 10th February, 2011 Js.