THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26408 OF 2009 Dated: 25.08.2010 Between: P. Ravi Kumar … Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad., and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26408 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the building permission granted to the respondents 5 and 6 and consequently to demolish the alleged illegal constructions made by the respondents 5 and 6 in Plot Nos.10 & 11 of Postal Audit Office Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, The petitioner herein claims title in respect of Plot No.10 and Plot No.11 situated in Postal Audit Office Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. It is stated that though the said plots stand in the names of one K.Shankaraiah and K. Lakshmaiah, they are none other than their paternal uncles and the petitioner and his four brothers are jointly entitled to a share in the said two plots. It is alleged that the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.6 who are the cousins of the petitioner had colluded with a developer by name Mithra Builders and started constructing huge apartments of about five floors in the above said Plots 10 & 11 with an intention to deprive the petitioner and his brothers of their legitimate share in the joint ancestral property. It is pleaded that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed O.S.No.8207 of 2005 in the Court of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and O.S.No.2273 of 2005 on the file of the Court of VIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and temporary injunction was granted restraining the petitioner and his brothers from interfering with the construction of the compound wall around the plots 10 & 11. It is stated that the petitioner along with his brothers filed O.S.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Court of XIX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition of the ancestral properties including the two plots in question. All the above said three suits are pending. It is alleged that without waiting for the final result of the above said suits, the respondents 5 and 6 entered into a development agreement with a builder by name Mithra Builders and built a five storeyed building in Plot Nos.10 & 11 which is in its final stage. It is further alleged that the respondents 5 and 6, having suppressed the pendency of the above suits, have been selling the flats to the third parties, thus involving the interest of third parties. It is stated that though the petitioner filed I.A.No.445 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2006 seeking injunction restraining the respondents 5 and 6 herein from proceeding with further construction, the said application is still pending and taking advantage of the same, the respondents 5 and 6 have been proceeding with the construction. It is alleged that though the petitioner issued a number of notices to the respondents 2 to 4 about the various cases pending with regard to the plots in question, the respondents 2 to 4 granted the permission for construction without making any enquiry. Hence the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the construction permission accorded to the respondents 5 to 6 and consequently to direct demolition of the illegal structures made by the respondents 5 and 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as well as the leaned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle No.10, GHMC, on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, it is stated that building permission was accorded in favour of the 6th respondent and others basing on the title deeds and documents submitted by the respondents 5 and 6 and that the construction is being made in accordance with the sanction plan. It is further stated that there is no deviation from the sanction plan and the respondent Corporation is in no way concerned with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6, all the allegations made in the writ petition have been denied and it is contended that they are proceeding with the constructions in accordance with the sanction plan. It is also stated that I.A.No.5 of 2006 filed by the writ petitioner in O.S.No.1 of 2006 for temporary injunction restraining the respondents 5 and 6 herein from alienating or encumbering the schedule property was dismissed by order dated 22.2.2006 holding that there was no presumption of jointness. As the said order has become final, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the respondents 5 and 6 are not entitled to proceed with the construction in Plot Nos.10 & 11. It is clear from the pleadings that the title claimed by the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos.10 & 11 is the subject-matter of Civil Suits pending before the competent courts. It is also not in dispute that the orders of temporary injunction granted against the petitioner and his brothers are in operation. The specific case of the respondents 5 and 6 that I.A.No.5 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein for temporary injunction was dismissed and the said order became final could not be disputed by the petitioner. No other material could be placed before this Court to substantiate the title claimed by the petitioner in the plots in question. Admittedly no such material could be produced even before the respondents 2 to 4. It is also the specific case of the respondents 2 to 4 that the respondents 5 and 6 are proceeding with the constructions in accordance with the sanction plan. In the circumstances, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.08.2010 gbs