These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of finally at the request of the learned counsel representing the respective parties.

2. WVMP No.1833 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.5970 of 2004 is filed to vacate the interim order made in WPMP No.7782 of 2004 in W.P. No.5970 of 2004, dated 9-4-2004.

3. Writ Petition No.5970 of 2004 is filed by the writ petitioner against the respondents, viz., The Mahaboobnagar Municipal Council represented by its Chairman and the Municipal Commissioner, Mahaboobnagar Municipality praying for a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the respondents from giving effect to the proceedings in file No.1/1709/2002, dated 31-10-2002 issued by the respondent after declaring the same as illegal and contrary to law and direct the respondents not to interfere with the site in front of his house bearing No.1-3-111/3 situated at Saddalgundu, Mahaboobnagar town and pass such other suitable orders.

4. Writ Petition No.18974 of 2006 is filed by one P. Jagan Mohan Rao showing the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.5970 of 2004 as 4th respondent and further impleading the Chairman, Municipal Council, Mahabubnagar Municipality, the Commissioner, Municipality Mahabubnagar the Regional Joint Director, Municipal Administration, Government of A.P. Hyderabad as respondents 1 to 3 respectively, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st and 2nd respondents in not restraining the 4th respondent from proceeding with illegal construction without obtaining any permission from the Municipality towards southern side of house No.1-3-111/10, Rajendranagar, Saddalgundu, Mahaboobnagar, which is meant for 50’ wide road in the master plan, though the construction permission of the 4th respondent was rejected by the Municipality, Mahaboobnagar twice, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and against the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to forthwith prevent the 4th respondent from proceeding with the above illegal construction without permission and pass such other suitable orders.

5. Inasmuch as the subject matter being common, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

6. Sri P. Innayya Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and would submit that in the light of the findings already recorded in as No.135 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Mahaboobnagar, the dispute now being put forth by the Municipality is totally unsustainable and hence the relief prayed for in the present Writ Petition to be granted. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant findings recorded in the prior judicial proceedings.

7. Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel representing the Municipality, however, would submit that the suit is for mere perpetual injunction and the Municipality is not interfering with the possession of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.5970 of 2004, but for approval of plan, the master plan is coming in the way and hence the findings recorded either in as No.135 of 1983 or AS No.34 of 1983 may not help the writ petitioner.

8. Sri Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.18974 of 2004 would contend that the 4th respondent in the said Writ Petition, Kamruddin Khan, who is the writ petitioner in W.P. No.5970 of 2004, is trying to proceed with illegal constructions without obtaining any permission whatsoever from the Municipality and this is not permissible, and several factual details narrated in this regard in the affidavit had been well explained.

9. The specific case of Kamruddin Khan, the writ petitioner in W.P. No.5970 of 2004 and 4th respondent in W.P. No.18974 of 2004 is that his father purchased a plot of an extent of 848 square yards in Suddalagundu locality at Mahaboobnagar town