ORDER : T. Vinod Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondents No.1, 2 & 4, Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 5, Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 11, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of the 3rd respondent in considering the representation of the petitioner, dt.11.06.2024, and initiating necessary action to cancel the building permission obtained by the unofficial respondents vide proceedings, dt.07.05.2024, as the said permission has been obtained during the pendency of a civil suit vide O.S.No.31 of 2024 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he is the owner and possessor of open plots admeasuring 12,000 sq. yards bearing Plot Nos.A/522 and A/530 in survey Nos.243 to 249 situated at Green Park Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad under L.B.Nagar Circle 4 of L.B.Nagar Zone GHMC, the unofficial respondents have obtained building permission in respect of the aforesaid property from the respondents-authorities on the basis of illegal sale deeds. 4. Petitioner further contends that he had approached the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction by filing a suit vide O.S.No.31 of 2024 seeking to declare himself as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property with a consequential relief to declare the sale deed bearing document No.6745 of 1992 and the subsequent sale deeds as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff/petitioner herein. 5. Petitioner further contends that since, he had approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction and filed the aforementioned suit, the respondents-authorities are required to cancel the building permission issued in favour of the unofficial respondents as there is a cloud with regard to their title to the subject property. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the authorities in order to grant building permission are only required to verify as to prima facie title and possession, and since, the documents, on the basis of which the unofficial respondents have applied for permission, show prima facie title in their favour, the respondents-authorities have granted building permission. 7. 7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the petitioner is now claiming that the documents produced by the unofficial respondents while seeking building permission are forged and fabricated, the same need to be adjudicated by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction and only upon such adjudication, petitioner can claim the permission obtained by the unofficial respondents is by making false statement and misrepresentation, warranting initiation of action under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955. 8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made. 9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in K.Pavan Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2008(1) ALD 792 had held that mere pendency of civil proceedings is not a bar for the municipal authorities to consider for grant of building permission inasmuch as the said authorities are required only to see prima facie title and possession for grant of building permission. 10. The aforesaid view of the learned Single Judge has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Mir Sayeed Khan Asad Khan v. State of Telangana MANU/TL/0208/2021 . 11. If one takes note of the above binding precedents of this Court, the claim of the petitioner that the authorities ought to have cancelled building permission issued in favour of the unofficial respondents on account of the pendency of the suit vide O.S.No.31 of 2024 filed by him for declaring the sale deeds of the unofficial respondents as null and void, can only be considered as a cloud being created on the title of the unofficial respondents, which is to be adjudicated by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. 12. Till such determination is done by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot claim that the unofficial respondents do not have title to the subject property, merely on account of the petitioner filing a suit and the same being pending consideration. 13. Further, it is also to be noted that since, the petitioner had approached the Civil Court of jurisdiction by filing a suit, he ought to have taken steps in the said suit to restrain the unofficial respondents herein, who are arrayed as defendants in the suit, from alienating the suit schedule property or changing the nature of the suit schedule property as an interim measure, if he so intended. 14. 14. The petitioner, instead of undertaking the aforesaid exercise, by the present Writ Petition is seeking the respondents-authorities to initiate action for cancellation of the building permission granted in favour of the unofficial respondents. 15. Insofar as the power of respondents-authorities to cancel the building permission is concerned, same is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 450 of GHMC Act, which stipulates that the building permission granted can only be revoked in the circumstances prescribed therein. 16. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s claim that the unofficial respondents are claiming title to the subject property on the basis of illegal sale deeds, it is only upon the factum of illegality being determined by the competent Civil Court, the petitioner can claim that the unofficial respondents not having any title to the subject property, so as to approach the respondents-authorities seeking for cancelation of the building permission obtained by them. 17. The petitioner, instead of taking the above steps, has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the said proceedings are of summary nature. Similarly, the municipal authorities also cannot adjudicate title dispute and the petitioner by the present writ petition as well as the representation submitted to the respondentsauthorities is actually seeking for such course of action to be undertaken which is not permitted in law. Further doing so this Court or the municipal authorities would be expressing their view/opinion on the matter, thereby making the civil proceedings perfunctory. 18. In view of the above, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.