( 1 ) WHETHER the first respondent herein can grant permission for construction of building in a park is the question involved in this application.

( 2 ) THE first writ petitioner is the Cooperative Housing Society. It has purchased 24 acres 14 guntas of land on 23-10-1956. The said land belonged to one Mir Osman ali Khan who sold it to Saleem Khan. The latter sold it to the first petitioner-society and whereafter plots were allotted to its members by it. The building plan submitted by the society for construction of the buildings was approved. There exists and approved lay out. As per the lay out an extent of 2500 square yards, which is covered by roads on four sides, was set apart for park and the said land was handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, which assumed the possession thereof. The first respondent, however, instead of developing the area as a park leased out about 1800 square yards of the park site to the second respondent for construction of school therein by reason of a lease deed dated 31-12-1981. Some other encroachments had also been made in the said area. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:". . . . . TO issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to remove the encroachments and constructions made by the 2nd respondent in the area earmarked for park in the layout of the 1st petitioner society and direct the 1st respondent to develop the same into a park and pass such other order or orders as the Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

( 3 ) THE second respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that earlier a writ petition had been filed, marked as Writ Petition No. 1040 of 1983, seeking the same relief and the same was dismissed by this Court holding that the corporation has executed a lease deed in its favour on 31-12-1981 basing on no objection certificate of the welfare association of the colony and the school had already constructed a building. It has further been alleged that the petitioners herein are fighting litigations in relation to some other dispute.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that having regard to the decision of the Apex court in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Mudappa, the decision of this Court in writ Petition No. 1040 of 1983 would not operate as res judicata. It was further submitted that the inter se dispute between the members of the Society cannot be taken as a defence in this writ petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to a Division bench judgment of this Court in Writ appeal No. 1185 of 1990 and the order dated 6-6-2000 in I. A. No. 570 of 1999 in o. S. No. 3270 of 1999.

( 6 ) THIS Court is not concerned with the said O. S. No. 3270 of 1999. So far as the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1185 of 1990 is concerned, this Court held:"the learned Single Judge noticed that the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation had given permission on the basis of no objection letter dated 28-1-1981 said to have been given by the Welfare association of the colony. The hyderabad Municipal Corporation executed a registered lease deed dated 31-12-81 leasing out the plot for 20 years on a rental of Rs. 35,000. 00. The 2nd respondent had paid Rs, 37,318/- towards betterment charges, plan fess, drainage charges, etc. , and got permission for construction. The construction was commenced in august, 1982. The writ petition itself came to be filed on 18-2-1983. It appears that initially an injunction was granted restraining the 2nd respondent from making construction but subsequently the injunction was vacated by a learned judge of this court (Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy as he then was), in 1983. The appellant preferred L. P. A. against the said order and the same was also dism