ORDER : 1. M. Siva Parvathi and two others filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for revision of building plan in B.A.No.1168/4043/B/ PMLR/KNR/2017 dated 01.02.2018 in respect of land admeasuring 1965 sq.yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Kanuru Village, Kanuru Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District on the ground of pendency of civil suit is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled for sanction of revised building plan and for release of mortgage created in favour of respondent No.2. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein are the absolute owners of land admeasuring 1965 sq. yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Kanuru Village, Kanuru Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into development agreement with petitioner No.3 herein for development of the above said land of 1965 sq. yards and petitioner No.3 has agreed to construct an apartment in the said land. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 entered into Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 21.03.2018 in this regard and the same was registered as Document No.2708 of 2018 in the Office of Joint Registrar, Patamata. As per the above Development Agreement-cum-GPA, the land owners i.e. petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for a share of 47% in the constructed area and the Developer i.e. petitioner No.3 is entitled for a share of 53% in the constructed area. Subsequently, the land owners and the developer have agreed to share the constructed area in the ratio of 50:50 and they entered into the supplemental agreement to the said Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney and got the same registered on 29.08.2018 vide document No.8498 of 2018 on the file of the Joint Sub-registrar, Patamata, Vijayawada. Prior to entering into the above said Development Agreement-cum-GPA, petitioners 1 and 2 herein obtained building permission for construction of ground + five upper floors on the above said land from the erstwhile A.P. Capital Region Development Authority vide B.A.No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017, dated 01.02.2018. Based on the approval/permission plan sanctioned by the erstwhile APCRDA, petitioner No.3 has taken up the construction activity in the said site. 3. Based on the approval/permission plan sanctioned by the erstwhile APCRDA, petitioner No.3 has taken up the construction activity in the said site. 3. In the building plan which was sanctioned in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, there was a typographical error in so far as numbering of flats are concerned. In the approved plan the flat numbers were represented from North to South. However, as per the actual drawing, flat numbers should be represented from South to North. Having noticed the above said mistake, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 made application for rectification/revision of flat numbers and submitted a revised plan by showing flat numbers from South to North. While the construction of the above said building was undertaken by petitioner No.3 herein, third parties filed O.S.No.938 of 2018 before the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein (petitioners herein) from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and using the same as their approach road for all purposes. In the plan, it is averred that they are the owners of land admeasuring 165 sq. yards in Sy.No.220/3A situated at Kanuru Villge, Penamaluru Mandal; that there was no approach road to the defendants therein (petitioners herein) for their site and sought for perpetual injunction against the defendants (petitioners herein). They also filed I.A.No.553 of 2018 in O.S.No.938 of 2018 for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. The said interlocutory application was dismissed on 29.11.2019. 4. While dismissing the above said interlocutory application, the learned Judge categorically observed that the road belongs to Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat has been managing the same by erecting street lights and undertaking patch works such as plantation works, erection of electrical poles, wires, cleaning of the said road. It was also categorically held that if the respondents therein (petitioners herein) are restrained by way of temporary injunction, it will affect not only the respondents therein i.e. the Petitioners herein but also the public at large since the petition schedule property is a road being used by the public, thereby, dismissed the said interlocutory application. 5. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted application for rectification/revision of plan for revising the flat numbers by counting the same from South to North direction. 5. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 submitted application for rectification/revision of plan for revising the flat numbers by counting the same from South to North direction. However, the 3rd Respondent herein issued Endorsement vide Letter No.EDS/1168/2019/1552, dated 02.11.2019 stating that the applicants i.e. petitioners 1 and 2 herein have to obtain and submit legal documents for the approach road and till then the work has to be stopped. The above said endorsement was issued one month before passing the orders in I.A.No.553 of 2018 in O.S.No.938 of 2018. As on the date of issuing the above said endorsement by respondent No.3, the construction of the building was already completed. 6. The application of the petitioners for rectification/revision was submitted annexing copy of the order in I.A.No.553 of 2018 in O.S.No.938 of 2018, respondent No.3 issued an order dated 08.07.2021 stating that Civil Suit in O.S.No.938 of 2018 is pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, regarding approach road. Respondent No.3 did not consider the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge in I.A.No.553 of 2018 in O.S.No.938 of 2018, more particularly about vesting of property on the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat is maintaining the same. But, now on the ground that the suit is pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, rejection of application of the petitioners submitted for revision or rectification is a serious illegality, requested to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for revision of building plan in B.A.No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017 dated 01.02.2018 in respect of land admeasuring 1965 sq.yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Kanuru Village, Kanuru Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District on the ground of pendency of civil suit is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 7. Respondent No.3 filed detailed counter admitting about passing of various orders, filing of suit O.S.No.938 of 2018, dismissing interlocutory application No.553 of 2018 and various proceedings. 8. It is specifically contended that a provisional building permission was accorded for construction of RCC Stilt + Ground + Four upper floors vide BA No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017 dt. 01.02.2018 in the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 subject to post verification of the information, documents furnished by the petitioners and as there is an existing road with infrastructure up to the petitioners’ site. 01.02.2018 in the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 subject to post verification of the information, documents furnished by the petitioners and as there is an existing road with infrastructure up to the petitioners’ site. The petitioners themselves are responsible for typographical error in the original pan and the said application was scrutinized and accorded permission as per applicable rules. The petitioner submitted revised plans vide BA No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017 dated 17.10.2019. The respondent is not a party to the injunction suit in O.S.No.938 of 2018 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and has no Knowledge about it. But clear title to the site as per Rules 3(c) and (d) and access/road as per Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules”) is mandatory. Unless the petitioner succeeds in the suit, respondent No.3 cannot sanction a valid building plan for the subject site as the subject site is under dispute according to the orders in O.S.No.938/2018. It is further contended that respondent No.3 received a revised plan on 17.10.2019, while complaints dated 26.06.2019 and 19.07.2019 from one Sri. M.V.B. Nageshwar Rao and M. Chandra Shekar plaintiffs in O.S.No.938 of 2018 requesting cancellation of original plan are pending. The objectors raised a specific contention that there is no approach road to R.S. No. 218/5,7 in Kanuru Village on the ground that they are the absolute owners of the land to an extent of 165 Sq.Yds in D.No.220/3A and an extent of 65.5 Cents in RS No.218/6 and land between 30 feet road and petitioner's site. The complainant further contends that the petitioners herein have shown their private land as approach road for the subject building and managed to get building permission without their consent, at their back. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition since the building plan was not granted in terms of Rule 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017. 9. It is contended that because of lack of road access required under Rule 53 of the Rules, a shortfall was issued to the petitioners vide EDS/1168/2019/1552 dated 02.11.2019 to produce documents showing the approach road to the building along with other remarks as mentioned therein. In view of shortfall issued the petitioners, the petitioners resubmitted revised plans again on 22.02.2021 but without any document showing approach road to their building. 10. In view of shortfall issued the petitioners, the petitioners resubmitted revised plans again on 22.02.2021 but without any document showing approach road to their building. 10. It is further contended that respondent No.3 is not a party to O.S.No.938/2018 and the petitioners ought to have impleaded the private property owners in RS No. 218/6 as party to the present petition as the petitioners are not able to show the approach road through private property. Even as per the approved layout the existing road does not connect the petitioners building. Irrespective of pendency of the civil suit, the petitioners must show approach road for obtaining building permission. 11. It is contended that petitioners have applied for approval of revised plans only and not for release of mortgage or other, and that only part of third-party land was regularised in Sy.No.218/6. As long as the third party's title over the land abutting the petitioner subsists, respondent No.3 cannot treat the same as access to the petitioners land. 12. It is further contended that the provisional permission and confirmation of the provisional permission are void ab initio in view of defective information furnished by the petitioners. The shortfall came to the notice of the respondent No.3 only after the third parties who have valid title over the land abutting the petitioners land complained that the petitioners showed their land as approach road without their knowledge. Therefore, the respondents cannot grant building permission to site without approach road. Since the petitioners themselves admitted errors in the building application/Plan, the said permission became irregular and is liable to revoked. In view of the complaint of the plaintiff in O.S.938/2018 even the original permission granted under B.A.No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017 dated 01.02.2018 is void ab-initio. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief, requested to dismiss the writ petition 13. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and counter. 14. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 obtained building permission. As a mistake was crept in the plan, the petitioners submitted application for rectification or revision, numbering the plots South to North. But it was rejected on the ground that the suit is pending by issuing impugned proceedings. Undisputedly, O.S.No.938 of 2018 is pending on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. As a mistake was crept in the plan, the petitioners submitted application for rectification or revision, numbering the plots South to North. But it was rejected on the ground that the suit is pending by issuing impugned proceedings. Undisputedly, O.S.No.938 of 2018 is pending on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. I.A.No.553 of 2018 was filed in the said suit to restrain the respondents therein (petitioners herein) from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of 165 sq. yards in Sy.No.220/3A situated at Kanuru Villge, Penamaluru Mandal and using the same as approach road to the building constructed, but the said interlocutory application was dismissed rejecting the plea of the petitioners therein while observing that it is a Panchayat road. The result of O.S.No.938 of 2018 is not known till date. However, it is clear from the material available on record that the suit is pending regarding approach road. Mere pendency of the suit filed by third parties claiming right in the approach road to the building is not a ground to deny the relief in the application submitted for revision/rectification of the errors in numbering plots since the permission was already granted. 15. When an application was submitted by third parties i.e. M.V.B. Nageswara Rao and M. Chandra Shekar, plaintiffs in O.S.No.938 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada raising several contentions in the complaints dated 26.06.2019 and 19.07.2019 for cancellation of approved plan, the act of respondent No.3 keeping the complaints pending is a serious illegality. 16. In any view of the matter, the main plea of the petitioners is that as per Rule 53 of the Rules, unless there is an approach road to the proposed building, the permission cannot be granted. Rule 53 of the Rules mandates requirement of approach road for building sites/plots. According to Rule 53, minimum abutting existing road width required for various uses of building activities shall be given below Category Type/Use of Building Plot permissible Minimum abutting exiting road width required (In meters) B3 (i) General Degree and other non-professional College (ii) High Rise buildings above 24m and up to 30 m height. (iii) Hospitals of more than 20 beds (iv) Multiplex Complex (v) Professional College campus (vi) Shopping Malls (above 4000 sq.m) (vii) Technical Educational institution-polytechnic/ITI 18 17. (iii) Hospitals of more than 20 beds (iv) Multiplex Complex (v) Professional College campus (vi) Shopping Malls (above 4000 sq.m) (vii) Technical Educational institution-polytechnic/ITI 18 17. But, here an approach/road to the building was shown in the plan and obtained approved plan from the concerned authorities. On account of filing suit, the respondents raised a specific plea that no approach road is provided since third parties are claiming right in an extent of 165 Sq.Yards between Gram Panchayat road and the building of the petitioner. 18. The main reason for issue of impugned proceedings is pendency of suit. Mere pendency of suit regarding part of the access/road is not a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner and that too, respondent No.3 is not a party to the suit, and no interim order was granted. On the other hand, I.A.No.553 of 2018 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule (1) and (2), and the same was dismissed. While dismissing the said I.A.No.553 of 2018, it was observed that the road belongs to Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat has been managing the same by erecting street lights and undertaking patch works such as plantation works, erection of electrical poles, wires, cleaning of road of the said road. It was also categorically held that if the respondents therein (petitioners herein) are restrained by way of temporary injunction, it will affect not only the respondents therein i.e. the petitioners herein but also the public at large since the petition schedule property is a road. In such case, the order impugned in the writ petition on the ground of pendency of civil suit is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 19. In such case, the order impugned in the writ petition on the ground of pendency of civil suit is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for revision of building plain in B.A.No.1168/4043/B/PMLR/KNR/2017 dated 01.02.2018 in respect of land admeasuring 1965 Sq.yards in R.S.No.218/5 situated at Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary, while directing respondent No.3 to re-examine the application of the petitioners submitted for rectification/revision of building plan by issuing prior notice to the petitioners herein, complainants/plaintiffs in O.S.No.938 of 2018 including panchayat secretary to produce relevant documents pertaining to the road, more particularly FMB relating to Panchayat road, petitioners site and connected files relating to laying of road by Gram Panchayat, providing electricity etc. and the complaints may also be directed to produce the documents relating to their claim and inspect the site i.e. access/road physically in the presence of petitioners, complainants and Panchayat Secretary duly fixing a date and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law for limited purpose of dealing with the application of the petitioners submitted for rectification/revision. The permission, if any, granted is subject to result of suit O.S.No.938 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. No costs. 20. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.