ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they have been heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. W.P. No. 21969 of 2017

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notices dated 29.06.2017 vide No. 283532/TPS/C18/GHMC/2017 and 30.06.2017 vide No. 283532/TPS/C18/GHMC/2017 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and also to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners' peaceful possession over the property in premises bearing No. 8-2-322, situated at Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (subject property).

3. W.P. No. 1784 of 2019

This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 & 2 pursuant to representation of the petitioner dated 02.12.2017 seeking cancellation of building permission bearing No. 9672/HO/CZ/C-10/2011, dated 28.03.2012 issued to the 3rd respondent under Section 450 of HMC Act, 1955 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to forthwith take action on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.12.2017.

4. In both these writ petitions, petitioners essentially sought to protect the disputed compound wall on 30'-00" wide road including the gate erected on the existing subject property and the unofficial 5th respondent (3rd respondent in W.P. No. 1784 of 2019) (hereinafter referred to as 'unofficial respondent'), who obtained building permission from the municipal authorities, sought to remove the said compound wall including the gate on the disputed 30'-00" wide road, to have ingress and egress to her property, stating the same as public road.

5. As already observed supra, W.P. No. 1784 of 2019 is being filed by the petitioner therein, for cancellation of building permission granted in favour of 3rd respondent therein, counter has been filed by the GHMC officials supporting their action of demolition of the disputed compound wall along with gate and the 3rd respondent also filed counter, rebutting the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. However, allegations and counter allegations are almost one and the same in both the writ petitions.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolute owners and possessors of the subject property having purchased the same in the year 1985 through registered sale deeds. Thereafter, with an intention to construct group houses, they obtained municipal permission vide permit No. 163/1972, dated 06.01.1988 for construction of the houses from the municipal authorities. The petitioners constructed houses by ear marking a 30 feet road within the subject property which road was to be used as an internal road for the petitioners to have ingress and egress to their respective property. The 30 feet road which was laid by the petitioners within their subject property was entirely private internal road which is also shown in the Municipal Permit dated 06.01.1988. Since date of construction they have been in possession of the subject property. While so, when certain individuals attempted to trespass into the subject property, petitioners made a representation dated 27.06.2012 to the 3rd respondent stating above facts. Subsequently, they received notice dated 22.05.2017 from the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioners unlawfully erected a gate at the entrance of the subject property and directed the petitioners to remove the same forthwith. Though the petitioners are residing in the subject property since the year 1988, the aforesaid notice was not served on them directly, but the same was affixed on the subject premises. Thereafter, they made representation to the 3rd respondent and all the concerned stating above facts and requested to drop all further action against the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners received another notice dated 29.06.2017 which was affixed on the subject