M.RAJESWARI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation in processing the Application of Respondents 9 to 11 seeking permission for construction of building in Survey No. 596, Ward No. 45, Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani. A consequential direction is also sought to set aside the building permit No. 3015/W452017/1194 dated 28.04.2018.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of Ac.0.20 guntas of land in the above-said Survey Number. Anticipating that the respondents may approach the Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam and obtain permission to raise construction in the subject land, the petitioner claims to have got issued notice to the authorities on 24.11.2017 through their counsel not to grant permission to Respondents 9 to 11 or anyone claiming through them, without putting her on notice. The petitioner would assert that on 30.11.2017 and on 09.05.2018 also, representations were made, wherein the pendency of O.S. No. 18 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge's Court at Godavarikhani between herself and the unofficial respondents, was mentioned. In spite of the same, the respondent Corporation had granted permission in favour of Respondents 9 to 11 through the impugned order. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside, as it was passed ignoring her case, claims the petitioner.

(3.) On behalf of Respondents 9 to 11, a counter-affidavit was filed, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had, in fact, filed a suit seeking declaration of her rights over the suit schedule property and till such time she succeeds in the suit, she cannot really have any claim thereon. Pending suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No. 430 of 2017 and the trial Court, having considered the respective claims, had dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 23.02.2018, duly taking into consideration the earlier proceedings in O.S. No. 91 of 2010 and O.S.No. 267 of 2006 against the vendors of Respondents 9 to 13. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, she did not press the said suit, which was dismissed. The petitioner having failed to obtain interim order and having suffered negative orders in the trial Court as well as before this Court in C.M.A. No. 668 of 2018, had resorted to file the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a duty cast on the authorities to consider the objections raised by his client. He further submits that what the petitioner seeks is an innocuous order of consideration of her representation, hence, prays for disposal of the Writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the objections of the petitioner and pass necessary orders.