ORDER : 1. Writ Petition No. 43977 of 2017 is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in granting the building approval on 06.10.2015 and 06.12.2017 in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as illegal and to set aside the same and also a further order of removing the constructions made as per the above said approved plans of 2015 and 2017. The petitioner is a private citizen who is questioning the grant of the approval by the 2nd respondent. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the un-official respondents. 2. The petitioner now claims to be the owner of Ac. 0.13 cents of land in Sy. No. 125/1A of Ramavarappadu Village, Vijayawada Rural. He claims to have acquired title through a gift deed dated 31.12.1980. According to the petitioner, one Sri. G. Venkataswami occupied the land on the western side of the petitioner's property. A suit (O.S. No. 329 of 2013) for declaration and for recovery of possession is filed and the same is pending. It is also stated that the private respondents claim to be the owners of Plot No. 6 have applied for regularization of the said plot which was granted by the Urban Development Authority. Therefore, a suit O.S. No. 850 of 2013 was filed questioning the approval granted for the plot by the Urban Development Authority. While these two suits are pending, the 3rd respondent who has purchased plot No. 6 has applied for approval for construction of the building in the disputed land. In spite of the dispute, according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent granted approval of the plan and started construction of the building. Hence, the writ is filed in December, 2017 seeking a prayer against the grant of the two approvals, to set aside the same and to remove the so-called illegal constructions. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter. According to the said counter, plot No. 6 was regularized in September, 2012 and a suit O.S. No. 850 of 2013 is pending against the said regularization. This plot was sold to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who applied for initial permission and secured the same in October, 2015. For construction of further floors, a second approval was sought and was granted in December, 2017. This plot was sold to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who applied for initial permission and secured the same in October, 2015. For construction of further floors, a second approval was sought and was granted in December, 2017. It is clearly mentioned that after the interim order was granted by this Court, no further constructions were permitted to be made in the plot. 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed a counter inter-alia contending that the entire area is plotted and that plots are existing there. They point out that two comprehensive suits O.S. No. 850 of 2013 and O.S. No. 329 of 2013 for declaration of title are pending. It is reiterated that as there are disputed questions of fact and suits are pending before a competent civil Court, it is the civil Court alone that can decide the issues raised. 5. W.P. No. 1023 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner against the CRDA and the un-official respondents. The averments in this case are also the same including the pendency of the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In this case, the building permit granted to the 3rd respondent in October, 2017 is questioned. The prayer in the writ is to set aside the building permission that has been granted. The 3rd respondent who has appeared has raised an issue in his counter about the title of the petitioner and states that he is not the owner of Ac. 0.13 cents of land. The respondent claims to have purchased 193.06 square yards of land on 17.02.1989. As the writ petitioner was obstructing the usage of the property and the road, he filed a suit O.S. No. 485 of 2009 for an injunction against the usage of the road. The road was formed according to the 3rd respondent after all the building owners executed a gift deed in favour of the Panchayat. In the alternative, it is submitted that the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013 is pending and therefore, it is argued that a writ is not a proper remedy. 6. In W.P. No. 34209 of 2018, the respondent in W.P. No. 1023 of 2018 is the writ petitioner. He is questioning the orders issued by the CRDA by which he was directed to stop the construction. 6. In W.P. No. 34209 of 2018, the respondent in W.P. No. 1023 of 2018 is the writ petitioner. He is questioning the orders issued by the CRDA by which he was directed to stop the construction. The petitioner again submits that he purchased the property on 17.02.1989 and that the building plan is approved in October, 2017. It is pointed out that after the interim order was passed in W.P. No. 1023 of 2018, no further constructions are made. He points out that an official order dated 30.04.2018 was given by the respondents to stop the construction. An explanation was also submitted to the same. But a further order dated 17.09.2018 was passed to demolish the further constructions. These are the orders which are challenged in this writ petition. 7. On the other hand, the unofficial respondents herein filed a counter stating that there is an illegal understanding between the CRDA and petitioner that all the constructions are made after the interim order was given; that contempt application had to be filed because the petitioner openly flouted the orders and that the CRDA is siding with the petitioner in this case in taking action against him. 8. This is the sum and substance of the three writ petitions which have been filed and have been heard together. 9. The Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in the respective writ petitions and the counsels for the respondents. 10. The gist of the dispute that can be traced is the claim of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 43977 of 2017 and W.P. No. 1023 of 2018. He claims to be the owner of the property. He traces his title to a gift deed. Thereafter, it is stated that after some sales are made, he is the owner of the property as described in items 1 of the plaint schedule property. It is stated that plaintiffs 2 and 3 who have acquired title from the first plaintiff are the owners of item No. 2. The prayer in the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013 is for declaration of title, for recovery of possession, a mandatory injunction for removal of illegal occupation and for other reliefs. The plaint is part of the material papers. The plaint was also amended as can be seen from the plaint copy by adding Para 16(a). The prayer in the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013 is for declaration of title, for recovery of possession, a mandatory injunction for removal of illegal occupation and for other reliefs. The plaint is part of the material papers. The plaint was also amended as can be seen from the plaint copy by adding Para 16(a). It is mentioned that the defendant No. 15 has acquired 193.18 square yards of land. There are prayers in the plaint for three items of property which are occupied by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to 6. According to the plaint, defendants 1 to 17 are in illegal occupation of the plaintiff's property. 11. As mentioned earlier, apart from this, there are two other suits which are also pending. The fact further remains that the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013 is the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 43977 of 2017 and also W.P. No. 1023 of 2018. The building approvals which are sought to be set aside were given in October, 2015 and December, 2017 (W.P. No. 43977 of 2017) and building approval is dated 30.10.2017 for the property covered by W.P. No. 1023 of 2018. In both these cases, the plaintiff will have to establish that he is the actual owner of the property. The plaint copies which are filed show that there are serious issues to be tried. There are allegations of encroachment of the plots and allegations of the encroachment into the common road also. It is stated that the entire property of the first plaintiff has been occupied by defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in O.S. No. 329 of 2013. There are serious allegations that defendant Nos. 1 to 7, 10 and 11 have also colluded with the authorities and a surveyor is not even appointed. The suit is therefore filed for a declaration of the plaintiffs title over 200 square yards and 429.2 square yards, for a permanent injunction and a prayer for recovery of possession of the encroached schedule property by defendant No. 1 to 6 by the defendants and also 341.2 square yards of an unauthorized C.C. road paved by defendant No. 7. This is the scope of the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013. 12. This is the scope of the suit O.S. No. 329 of 2013. 12. In O.S. No. 850 of 2013 also, there are serious allegations about the manner in which the property was acquired by the defendants and also the sanction of the lay out approval. It is stated that material facts are suppressed for regularization of the lay out. Therefore, on the basis of these serious allegations, the lay out approval which was granted/lay out regularization which has granted was sought to be cancelled. The 3rd writ petition is about the stoppage of further constructions. This suit O.S. No. 850 of 2013 which is filed questioning the regularization has been dismissed on 16.07.2019 with costs. 13. Similarly, a copy of the order passed in O.S. No. 485 of 2019 is also filed. The writ petitioner Sri. Ayyanna Naidu in W.P. No. 43997 of 2017 and W.P. No. 1023 of 2018 is the defendant in the suit. Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao, the petitioner in W.P. No. 34209 of 2018 is the plaintiff. This suit is filed for an order restraining the respondents from interfering with the road portion. The suit was decreed with costs on 31.10.2018 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada granting a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants 1 and 2 till the rights of the first defendant are decided in O.S. No. 329 of 2013. 14. Therefore, as the things stand, there are two judgments of competent civil Courts. In the second judgment which relates to the road portion which is supposedly occupied, the learned senior civil Judge has held after a trial that the rights of the petitioner in the writ are seem to be established. Even as on date, there is no clarity about the title of the petitioner to the specific bit of land which he claims. This is a matter of evidence which can be decided only by a competent civil Court. 15. In the opinion of this Court, the issues raised by the petitioners are matters of evidence which can only be appreciated by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Issues of fraud, collusion, illegal occupation of property etc., have to be established. Boundaries and extents have also got to be firmly established. These are all matters which a writ Court cannot enter into. Issues of fraud, collusion, illegal occupation of property etc., have to be established. Boundaries and extents have also got to be firmly established. These are all matters which a writ Court cannot enter into. Admittedly, the suit for declaration of title is still pending and the learned senior civil Judge while dismissing O.S. No. 285 of 2019 has also held that the first defendant Sri. Venkata Ayyannayudu has to establish his title in O.S. No. 329 of 2013. Injunction is granted till the same was established. 16. In view of above and as the pleadings and documents clearly show that a comprehensive civil suit is pending and as there are serious questions of fact to be established, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner in W.P. No. 43977 of 2019 and 1023 of 2018 is not entitled to any relief at this stage. 17. In W.P. No. 34209 of 2018, the prayer is with regard to an order to stop construction. This was finalized on 17.09.2018. The explanation submitted was not really considered in the second and final order on 17.09.2018. A brief and cryptic order is issued. This is contrary to the settled law on the subject which states that all such orders should be reasoned. As the civil suit is pending and as the issue raised about the title of the petitioner in 193.06 square yards is also to be decided, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an order as prayed for. As the suit O.S. No. 850 of 2013 has been dismissed, there cannot be an order against the petitioner in W.P. No. 34209 of 2019. 18. Therefore, W.P. Nos. 43977 of 2017 and 1023 of 2018 are dismissed and W.P. No. 34209 of 2018 is allowed. No order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.