Judgment Puttaparthy is the abode of Bhagawan Sri Satya Sai Baba. It has become an important spiritual centre, and a township has developed. The Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted the Puttaparthy Urban Development Authority, the 1st respondent herein, in exercise of power under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act (for short ‘the Act’), to ensure proper and systematic development of the town. The 2nd respondent submitted an application to the 1st respondent, with a request to accord permission to construct a building upon a plot of 11 cents in Sy.No.48-2 of Enumulapalli Village, Puttaparthy Mandal of Anantapur District. Permission was accorded on 05-02-2004. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Government of A.P., in Municipal Administration Department, under Section 42(2) of the Act. An order of stay was granted by the Government on 08-09-2005. Feeling aggrieved by the order of stay, the 2nd respondent filed W.P.No.17701 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of on 26-10-2007, directing the Government to pass orders in the appeal itself, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Government passed order dated 28-01-2008, remanding the matter to the 1st respondent with a direction that the matter be examined, with reference to the legal issues and the orders of injunction obtained by various parties, and to cancel the permission, if any, already given. After remand, the 1st respondent heard the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, and passed order dated 16-03-2009, according permission to the 2nd respondent to construct the building upon the site in Sy.No.48-2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the 1st respondent. The brief facts relevant to this writ petition are that the family of the petitioners held land in Sy.Nos.48-1 and 48-2 of Enumulapalli Village, Puttaparthy Mandal, and out of the land in Sy.No.48-1, an extent of 8 cents was gifted in favour of their sister by name, Subbamma, and another extent of 3 cents was sold in favour of one, Mr.Santhilathapathi, on 22-07-1992. The 3 cents of land was sold in favour of Lellabhai on 16-07-1985. While Lellabhai, in turn, sold 3 cents to Tejram Pahwa, on 31-12-1990, Subbamma sold 8 cents on 24-12-1990 to the wife and sons of Tejram Pahwa. The pahwa’s family sold the total of 11 cents held by them in favour of Radha Krishna Reddy on 24-02-1999. The 3 cents of land was sold in favour of Lellabhai on 16-07-1985. While Lellabhai, in turn, sold 3 cents to Tejram Pahwa, on 31-12-1990, Subbamma sold 8 cents on 24-12-1990 to the wife and sons of Tejram Pahwa. The pahwa’s family sold the total of 11 cents held by them in favour of Radha Krishna Reddy on 24-02-1999. The 2nd respondent is said to have purchased 11 cents from Radha Krishna Reddy on 07-02-2000. However, in sale deeds dated 24-02-1999, the survey number of 8 cents and 3 cents was mentioned as 48-2. The petitioners contend that neither the 2nd respondent nor the successive vendors did not have any right, title or interest over the land in Sy.No.48-2, and that the permission accorded to the 2nd respondent was totally untenable. They further plead that in Sy.No.48-2 in respect of 13 cents of land, they have filed O.S.No.12 of 2001 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Penugonda against the vendor’s vendor of the 2nd respondent, and that an order of temporary injunction was passed therein. It is also stated that the vendor’s vendors i.e. Tejram Pahwa and his wife and son filed two suits being O.S.Nos.24 and 25 of 1999 against the petitioners herein in respect of the land in Sy.No.48-1 for the relief of perpetual injunction and that five years later, they filed applications, seeking amendment of the plaint to claim the relief in respect of the land in Sy.No.48-2. The applications are said to have been dismissed on 16-11-2004, and that the suits were also dismissed for default, on 07-02-2005. Reference is also made to O.S.No.102 of 2004 filed by the 2nd respondent in the same Court, and the nature of order passed therein. They assert that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction or power to decide the title disputes, particularly when suits are pending. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit. He has narrated the manner in which, he has acquired the title in respect of the land. His principal contention is that the family of the petitioners held about 48 cents of land in Sy.No.48-1, and 13 cents of land in Sy.No.48-2, and both the extents were sold or otherwise transferred during the lifetime of the father of the petitioners, Laxminarayanappa. Reference is made to various proceedings, pertaining to the land and to the depositions of the petitioners in O.S.No.12 of 2001. Reference is made to various proceedings, pertaining to the land and to the depositions of the petitioners in O.S.No.12 of 2001. It is also stated that the petitioners executed a deed of rectification, to the effect that the property gifted to their sister is the one, in Sy.No.48-2, not in Sy.No.48-1. He further pleads that the 1st respondent has passed the orders in accordance with the directions issued by this Court as well as the State Government. Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as of now, a suit filed by the petitioners, and another filed by the 2nd respondent, in respect of the land in question are pending, and the 1st respondent was not at all justified in expressing the view, as to the right of the petitioners over the land. He contends that the so-called deed of rectification was brought into existence in favour of Subbamma, several years after she parted with the property. Learned counsel submits that when in the series of sale deeds, that preceded the purchase of the land by the 2nd respondent, the land is shown as the one in Sy.No.48-1, it is ununderstandable as to how he could have purchased the land in Sy.No.48-2. Sri M. Surender Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that, in case the petitioners have any dispute or claim, vis-à-vis the land covered by the impugned permission, they have to approach the Civil Court and seek adjudication. He contends that, in clear terms, the 1st petitioner deposed as a witness, stating that their family does not have any land in Sy.No.48-1, or 48-2 and the writ petition is filed as a speculative measure. He submits that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court as well as the Appellate Authority, and that it accords with law. Heard Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.C.H. Naidu learned Standing Counsel for the Urban Development Authority, and Sri M. Surender Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The dispute in relation to the plot of 11 cents is pending for the past about one decade. The land has acquired quite a considerable value in Puttaparthy, and any uncertainty about the title is taken advantage of, by the vendors or the purchasers, as the case may be. The dispute in relation to the plot of 11 cents is pending for the past about one decade. The land has acquired quite a considerable value in Puttaparthy, and any uncertainty about the title is taken advantage of, by the vendors or the purchasers, as the case may be. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioners and their father were the original owners of about half acre of land, in Sy.No.48-1 and a small bit of 13 cents, in Sy.No.48-2. 8 cents of land in Sy.No.48-1 was gifted by the family of the petitioners on 22-07-1982 in favour of Subbamma, the sister of the petitioners. On the same day, 3 cents of that survey number were sold in favour of a third party, i.e. Santhilathapathi. One Mr.Lellabhai purchased 3 cents from her, in 1985, and in turn, he sold it to Tejram Pahwa on 31-12-1990. One week earlier thereto, Iswari Devi Pahwa and Lalit Mohan, wife and son respectively of Tejram, purchased 8 cents of land from Subbama on 24-12-1990. Thus, both the pieces of land came to be held by the same family. 9 years after the purchase, Pahwa’s family sold both the bits to Radha Krishna Reddy in the year 1999. From him, the petitioners purchased the combined plot of 11 cents. In all the transactions, the survey number of both the bits was mentioned as 48-1. It was only in the sale deed, dated 07-02-2000, in favour of the petitioners, that the survey number was mentioned as 48-2. It may be true that the family of the petitioners held 13 cents of land in Sy.No.48-2. However, unless the manner in which that piece of land had accrued to the vendor of the 2nd respondent, he cannot simply claim title by substituting the survey number. This discussion is undertaken, not with a view to declare title or pronounce upon the rights of the parties. The attempt is only to point out, that there is serious dispute both as regards title of the parties, and the survey number from which, the plot is carved out. When the 1st respondent accorded permission in favour of the 2nd respondent, on 05-02-2004 to construct upon the plot, he did not have the opportunity of hearing the petitioners herein. The attempt is only to point out, that there is serious dispute both as regards title of the parties, and the survey number from which, the plot is carved out. When the 1st respondent accorded permission in favour of the 2nd respondent, on 05-02-2004 to construct upon the plot, he did not have the opportunity of hearing the petitioners herein. The matter was carried in appeal and the appellate authority took into account, the pendency of various proceedings and the nature of claims therein. The matter was remanded to the 1st respondent with a direction that the various proceedings pending in the Courts and the orders passed therein be taken into account. There was no direction to the 1st respondent to express any view, as to the title, nor such a direction could have been given at all. After hearing both the parties, the 1st respondent expressed his view as under: “After examining all the records and documents and I opine that Sri M. Venkatesulu, S/o. M. Lakshmi Narayanappa and his brother Sri Gangadri have disposed of the entire extent of Ac.0.13 cents held by them, in Sy.No.48-2 and an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in Sy.No.48-1 of Enumula palli Village to various persons as already discussed and narrated in this office Rc.No.338/2008, dt. 03-09-2007. In view of the above, it is decided that the permission accorded already for approval of Compound Wall in this office B.A.No.2/2005/B., dt. 05-02-2004 is upheld and the fresh plan applied by Sri S. Sadik Vali (GPA holder) S/o. Mohammad Vali, Bramhana Palli Village for Sy.No.48-2 with an extent of Ac.0.11 cents of Enumula Palli Village is hereby approved for construction of Residential Building with Stilt, and G + First Floor, subject to following conditions...” For all practical purposes, the 1st respondent had pronounced upon the title, or the lack of it, on the part of the petitioners, vis-à-vis the land in Sy.Nos.48-1 and 48-2. It is only from a Civil Court, that such a pronouncement could have been expected, if a suit for declaration of title is filed. The Government i.e. the Appellate Authority gave a specific direction to the 1st respondent, to take into account, the pending proceedings, including the orders of injunction. It is a matter of record that O.S.No.12 of 2001 filed by the petitioners and O.S.No.102 of 2004 filed by the 2nd respondent are pending. The Government i.e. the Appellate Authority gave a specific direction to the 1st respondent, to take into account, the pending proceedings, including the orders of injunction. It is a matter of record that O.S.No.12 of 2001 filed by the petitioners and O.S.No.102 of 2004 filed by the 2nd respondent are pending. O.S.Nos.24 and 25 of 1999 filed by the vendor’s vendor of the petitioners in respect of two bits of 8 cents and 3 cents, respectively, were dismissed for default. Those suits were filed for the relief of injunction against the petitioners herein in respect of land in Sy.No.48-1. I.A.Nos.549 and 550 of 2004 filed under Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C., for amendment of the plaint and schedule, to substitute Sy.No.48-1 with 48-2 were dismissed on 16-11-2004. The suits were ultimately dismissed for default on 07-02-2005. None of these proceedings were referred to, or mentioned in the impugned order. Across the Bar, it is urged that, an application was filed in O.S.No.12 of 2001 to implead the 2nd respondent herein, as one of the defendants. In O.S.No.102 of 2004 filed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners herein are shown as defendants 1 and 4, respectively. It is only after the respective rights of the petitioners are determined by the Court concerned, that the 2nd respondent could have considered the feasibility of according permission. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 2nd respondent to approach the 1st respondent seeking permission, after a competent Court of law has declared his rights, vis-à-vis the land, in Sy.No.48-2. There shall be no order as to costs.