A writ petition is maintainable even if there is a pending suit, if the petitioner alleges that the statutory authorities are failing to discharge their statutory duty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri G.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Badvel Municipality, represented by its Commissioner and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein in not taking any action against the unofficial Respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein for making illegal constructions of the land of the Petitioner herein in an extent of Ac.2.89 cents situated in Sy.No.1755-1, Chennampalli Village Fields of Badvel Town, YSR Kadapa District without any Building Plan, Layout Approval or permission from the 2nd Respondent herein or from the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Revenue Laws such as NALA Act etc., as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to take immediate action against the illegal construction undertaken by the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein in the land of the Petitioner herein in an extent of Ac.2.89 cents situated in Sy.No.1755-1 Chennampalli Village Fields of Badvel Town YSR Kadapa District.”

3. Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother Smt. N.Obulamma purchased the land to an extent of Ac.2.89 cents in Sy.No.1755-1 situated at Chennampalli Village Fields of Badvel Town, YSR Kadapa District (in short subject land) from her vendor namely Nadipogu Veeraiah vide Registered sale deed document No.1985/1982, dated 25.03.1982. The name of the petitioner’s mother was also mutated in the revenue records, such as 1-B (ROR), Namuna and No.3 Adangal/Pahani and the revenue authorities also issued Pattadar Pass Book. After her demise, the petitioner, with other legal heirs is in enjoyment of the subject land. He further submits that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 without any right or title started raising illegal construction in the subject land forcibly as the 5th respondent was elected the Vice Chairperson of the 2nd respondent/Badvel Municipality, without obtaining any building plan against which the petitioner made a complaint to the 3rd respondent/District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, and the Municipal authorities but, no action was taken. The petitioner then approached this Court in W.P.No.14715 of 2021, which was disposed of by order dated 29.10.2021 recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality “that the respondent-Municipal Authorities, only after holding enquiry as to the title and right over the subject property, will proceed further for grant of building permission”, but, inspite thereof, the 5th respondent being the Vice Chairperson of the Municipality, the official respondents did not take any action. He further submits that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.38 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel against the respondents 2 to 4, 6 and 7 for a decree of declaration of right and title over the subject land as also for permanent injunction, which is pending.

4. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel submits that the 2nd respondent is not aware of any of the rights of the petitioner or his mother in the subject land. The 2nd respondent on receipt of the notice of the writ petition directed its staff to take steps to stop the construction. The 2nd respondent also secured the presence of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 to make enquiry into their right, possession and the building permission in which enquiry it was found that the plan was approved in the year 2008 permitting the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents to construct building in Sy.No.1755/1, Sy.No.1755/1 & Sy.No.1755/6 respectively. He, however, submits that the 2nd respondent has no authority to accord permission for any construction in the