THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.10818 of 2013

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide No.M.C.K/B/430/2011 dated 13.10.2011 refusing to grant permission for construction as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case...”

2. Heard Ms.N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri K.V.V.Vedanta Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent

No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a suit in O.S.No.115 of 2009 was filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, seeking injunction simpliciter, which was allowed by the trial Court on 09.12.2009. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 filed CMA.No.1 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, and the said appeal was allowed on 28.12.2010 setting aside the injunction order and

decree granted by the trial Court.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed CRP.No.596 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court and this Court was pleased to allow the said CRP on

11.03.2011 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in CMA.No.1 of 2010. She further stated that order in I.A.No.322 of 2009 in O.S.No.115 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad is in favour of the petitioner and is operating against respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that without any basis for rejecting the building application, the respondent-Municipality has rejected the building application. As such, it is unjustified and untenable and as respondent No.2 was restrained from interfering into the rights of the petitioners and prima facie the title is in favour of the petitioners. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the notice, dated

13.10.2011.

5. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that in view of the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 was unable to accord permission for construction of house by the petitioners in the premises alleged to have been owned and possessed by them and in view of changed circumstances, the petitioners may be directed to file new application through online by submitting all the relevant documents and necessary orders from the learned trial Court and respondent No.1 would consider the same by following due process of law as contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

6. In view of the submissions made by the respective parties and in view of the changed circumstances and also the order passed in I.A.No.322 of 2009 in O.S.No.115 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, as confirmed by this Hon’ble Court in C.R.P.No.596 of 2011 and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct petitioners to file appropriate application through online by filing all the relevant documents and upon such application being made respondent No.1 shall consider the same by following due process of law as contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and respondent No.1 shall also issue notice to respondent No.2 before passing any orders and shall also examine all the documents filed by the petitioners and consider the case of the petitioners on merits. It is needless to say that the petitioners shall file application within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and respondent No.1 shall dispose of the same, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter by following due process of law as contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and shall also issue notice to the parties before passing orders.

7. Accordingly, the writ petitio