ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not taking any steps for stopping the construction and demolition of building being raised by respondent No.3 in an extent of 315 square yards in Sy.No.797 situated at FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 30.06.2015 issued by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri K.V.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Ravi Kondaviti, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel-on-record for respondent No.3. 3. The facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details, required for adjudication and disposal of the present Writ Petition, are that the petitioner purchased open place admeasuring of 132 square yards bearing House No.34-363/1(Old No. 34-245/D) in Sy.No.797 out of Ac.0-15 gts situated in Miryalaguda Town and Municipality, Nalgonda District, under a registered sale deed No.1430 of 2008, dated 12.03.2008, from one Nampaly Ram Narsaiah; that petitioner’s vendor obtained permission for construction, vide Permit No.G/2337 of 1994, dated 04.08.1994, and constructed a compound wall around the site; that the petitioner also purchased 363 square yards bearing House No.34-364/2 (Old No.34-245/E) in Sy.No.797 out of Ac.0-05 gts situated at Miryalaguda Revenue Village and Municipality under a registered sale deed No.1426 of 2008 dated 12.03.2008 from Nampally Sakkubai, who obtained construction permission vide Permit No.G/2280 of 1994, dated 21.07.1994, and constructed a compound wall around the site. 3.1. That respondent No.3 filed a suit vide O.S.No.10 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda against one of the vendors of the petitioner and one Aechuri Krishnamurthy for perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed on 17.10.1997; that subsequently, respondent No.3 also filed a suit in OS.No.195 of 2009 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District against the petitioner for perpetual injunction, basing on the documents executed by Varakala Sathyanarayana Reddy and Jonnalagadda Matta Reddy, which were filed in OS.No.10 of 1994; that boundaries of the suit schedule property in OS.No.10 of 1994 and the subject property are different. 3.2. 3.2. It was further averred that when respondent No.3 tried to occupy the petitioner’s land, the petitioner filed a suit in OS.No.259 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and the same is pending; that in the meanwhile, the suit in OS.No.195 of 2009 filed by respondent No.3 was decreed on 25.02.2015 and aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda and the same is pending; that taking advantage of the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.195 of 2009, respondent No.3 submitted an application on 07.04.2015 for grant of permission for construction of house and respondent No.2 granted permission vide proceedings No.G1/13/MM/2015, dated 09.04.2015, for construction of Commercial Building consisting of stilt + Ground + two upper floors; that basing on the permission granted by respondent No.2 and dismissal of I.A.No.365 of 2015 in A.S.No.6 of 2015, vide order, dated 28.04.2015, respondent No.3 occupied the petitioner’s plot on 03.05.2015 and commenced construction. 3.3. The petitioner submitted that he made application on 13.04.2015 to respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of permission granted to respondent No.3 on the ground that petitioner has purchased the said land through registered sale deeds and there are civil disputes pending between them; that basing on the said application of the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to respondent No.3 on 15.05.2015 calling for explanation as to why the permission granted to him shall not be suspended; that respondent No.3 also got issued a legal notice through his advocate on 20.04.2015; that again, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.2 on 22.05.2015 stating that respondent No.3 submitted application for construction of the house in respect of 315 square yards suppressing the fact that he sold 60 ½ square yards on 19.04.1985 to Pottumottu Sashikalla vide Registered document. No.1287 of 1985 and thus, respondent No.3 has got only an extent of 254.5 square yards of land in Sy.No.797, but got permission for construction of house property for 315 square yards of land; that respondent No.2 issued another show cause notice to respondent No.3 on 26.05.2015, however, no explanation was submitted by respondent No.3, therefore, respondent No.2 suspended the permission for construction of Building vide proceedings No.G/13/MM/2015 dated 08.06.2015 under Section 344(6) of AP. Municipalities Act, 1965; that aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.18094 of 2015, however, this Court declined to grant an interim order. 3.4. It was further averred that the petitioner filed a suit in OS.No.23 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda against respondent No.3 for declaration of title and restoration of possession of the property in dispute along with I.A.No.582 of 2015 seeking ad-interim injunction restraining respondent No.3 from creating any charge over the subject property and the said Court was pleased to granted an ad-interim injunction as prayed for, vide order dated 14.07.2015. 3.5. It was further averred that after the petitioner made complaint to respondent No.2 on 04.05.2015 regarding the false representation made by respondent No.3 for obtaining building permission, one Pottumuthu Chandra Sekhar re-conveyed an extent of 30.25 square yards, vide document No.2753/2015. 3.6. It was further averred that subsequently also, the petitioner made complaints on 04.06.2015 and 26.06.2015 stating that respondent No.3 was making construction, though the same was cancelled and therefore, requested respondent No.2 to take immediate action to stop the construction and demolish the same; that respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice vide proceedings dated 15.06.2015 to respondent No.3 calling for an explanation and further, issued Final Show Cause Notice dated 30.06.2015, however respondent No.2 did not take further action pursuant to the said final show cause notice and aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 was not owner of 315 square yards, as he has alienated 60 ½ square yards to one Pottumottu Sashikalla through a registered sale deed, dated 19.04.1985, and as such, he has got only 254.5 square yards, however, respondent No.3 has obtained permission for construction over entire extent of 315 square yards by suppressing the said fact and therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly suspended the permission accorded to respondent No.3. Learned counsel further submitted that there are multiple cases pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in the form of suits and appeal before various Courts, as averred in the writ affidavit, therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in not taking steps to stop and demolish the construction raised by respondent No.3 in the subject land, despite issuing final show cause notice dated 30.06.2015, is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act. By submitting thus, learned counsel contended that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, directing respondent No.2 to take steps to stop and demolish the structures raised by respondent No.3 in the subject land. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.3 filed W.P.No.18094 of 2015 challenging the proceedings, dated 08.06.2015, whereunder the building permission granted to him was suspended, and the said Writ Petition was allowed vide Order, dated 06-10-2015, granting liberty to respondent-Municipality to issue notice calling upon the petitioner therein, i.e., respondent No.3 herein to explain with reference to total extent of land possessed by him, on which building permission was granted, and after affording opportunity to the parties therein, i.e., the petitioner herein and respondent No.3 herein, to pass appropriate orders as warranted by law, and till such action is initiated and orders are passed, directed the Municipality not to interfere with the construction activity of respondent No.3 herein and further, directed respondent No.3 not to deviate from the building permission granted to him; and that aggrieved by the Orders, dated 06-10-2015 passed in Writ Petition No.18094 of 2015, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1006 of 2015 and the said Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide Order, dated 12-11-2015, with the following observations:- “It is open to the 1st respondent, as observed by learned Judge in paragraph 8, to furnish his explanation to the notice that may be issued by the Municipality in pursuance of the observations made in the aforementioned paragraph and it is open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authority of the Municipality and place all the materials including the order of injunction, dated 14.07.2015, passed in O.S.No.23 of 2015 for consideration. We hope and trust that the concerned authority shall consider the 1 st respondent's explanation and the appellant's representation in proper perspective, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said explanation and representation and if the dispute regarding identity of the property is found to be genuine, it may proceed to measure the property at the cost of the parties and fix boundaries. If it is found that the 1st respondent is raising construction on the plot of land, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.23 of 2015, the 1st respondent shall stop the construction forthwith and approach the VIII Additional District Judge at Miryalaguda for appropriate relief in O.S.No.23 of 2015. It is needless to mention that if the property where the 1st respondent is raising construction is different from the property, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.23 of 2015, it would be open to him to proceed with the construction. However, it would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Municipality and so also the civil Court. It is also needless to mention that the concerned authority of the Municipality and the civil Court where O. S.No.23 of 2015 is pending shall decide the proceedings/suit on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order as well as the impugned order.” 5.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed C.C.No.2299 of 2016 complaining violation of orders dated 12.11.2015, passed in W.A.No.1006 of 2015 and in the said case, the Commissioner, Miryalguda Municipality, filed counter stating that after receipt of the Orders in WA.No.1006 of 2015, a licensed Surveyor along with Town Planning Staff measured the plot in dispute and submitted a report along with measurement and map to Miryalguda Municipality on 12-04-2016; that basing on the said report, the respondent-Municipality passed Proceedings No.G/2078/2016, dated 30-04-2016; and that this Court, taking into consideration the said counter and also the dismissal of suit- OS.No.23 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, disposed of the said Contempt Case, vide Order, dated 25-01-2022, with the following observations:- “In the considered opinion of this Court, no further orders are required to be passed by the respondent as he has already passed Order, dated 30.4.2016 which was dispatched to the parties, who were litigating over their rights. Resultantly, the present Contempt Case stands disposed of with liberty to the parties to assail the orders passed by the respondent in accordance with law." 5.2. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2015 filed by the petitioner before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, against respondent No.3 herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of house plot admeasuring 495 sq. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2015 filed by the petitioner before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, against respondent No.3 herein for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of house plot admeasuring 495 sq. yards was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 21-01-2022 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.81 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending and no interim Orders are granted. He further submitted that against the decree dated 25.01.2015 passed in OS.No.195 of 2009, which was filed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.06 of 2015 before the Court of the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda and the same was dismissed on 21-01-2022. Challenging the Orders in A.S.No.06 of 2015, the petitioner herein filed S.A.No.152 of 2022 before this Court and the same is pending and no interim Orders are granted. 5.3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in view of the orders passed by this Court in WA.No.1006 of 2015 and CC.No.2299 of 2016 and the judgments passed in the aforesaid suits and appeal inter se between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This case has a chequered history. Initially, respondent No.3 filed a suit vide OS.No.195 of 2009 against the petitioner for injunction and subsequently, petitioner filed a suit OS.No.23 of 2015 against respondent No.3 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the subject land. The suit-OS.No.195 of 2009 filed by respondent No.3 was allowed, vide order dated 25.02.2015 and the suit-OS.No.23 of 2015 filed by petitioner stood dismissed, vide judgment dated 21.01.2022. 7. It is relevant to note that after the decree was passed against respondent No.3 in OS.No.195 of 2009 and the same was subsisting, respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 08.06.2015 cancelling the building permission granted to the petitioner. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.18094 of 2015 and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice, dated 30.06.2015, by referring to the proceedings dated 08.06.2015, whereby the building permission was cancelled, and also some complaints, and directed the petitioner to stop the construction activity. 8. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.18094 of 2015 and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice, dated 30.06.2015, by referring to the proceedings dated 08.06.2015, whereby the building permission was cancelled, and also some complaints, and directed the petitioner to stop the construction activity. 8. However, the cancellation proceedings dated 08.06.2015 were set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.18094 of 2015, vide orders dated 06.10.2025 and the said order was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1006 of 2015, wherein it was categorically observed that if respondent No.3 herein is raising construction on the plot of land which is different from the subject matter of OS.No.23 of 2015, he can proceed with the construction and vice versa, respondent No.3 was directed to stop the construction forthwith. Further, it was left open to both the parties, i.e., the petitioner herein and respondent No.3 herein to place before the authority concerned of the respondent- Municipality all the relevant material, and further observed that if the authorities, after considering the same, find that the dispute regarding the identity of the property is genuine, they may proceed to measure the property. Complaining non-compliance of the said order, the petitioner filed CC.No.2299 of 2016, in which, as stated supra, considering the counter filed by the Commissioner of respondent-Municipality, and also taking into account the fact that the suit-OS.No.23 of 2015 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, this Court dismissed the said Contempt Case, vide order dated 25.01.2022. 9. Thus, from chronology of the above events/proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to prove his case in O.S.No.23 of 2015, which is filed by him, as well as in O.S.No.195 of 2009, which is filed by respondent No.3 and consequently, in both the said suits, judgments were passed against the petitioner and the decrees passed in both the suits is binding on the petitioner. Even the injunction order dated 14.07.2015 passed in favour of the petitioner in OS.No.23 of 2015 stands vacated in view of subsequent dismissal of the suit itself by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.01.2022. On the other hand, the suit OS.No.195 of 2009 was decreed in favour of respondent No.3 granting injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is binding on the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, the suit OS.No.195 of 2009 was decreed in favour of respondent No.3 granting injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is binding on the petitioner. 10. Further, it is apt to note that though the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1006 of 2015 reserved liberty to the petitioner to place before the respondent-Municipality all the relevant material in support of his case that the property in which respondent No.3 is raising construction is same as that of the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2015, the petitioner was unsuccessful in his attempts. 11. Apart from the above, the respondent-Municipality has issued proceedings dated 30.04.2016 to the effect that the report and plan submitted by the licensed Surveyor and the permission granted under document No.739/1981, dated 06.03.1981 are tallying with each other. 12. In the light of the aforesaid facts, particularly, in view of the fact that notice dated 08.06.2015, pursuant to which show cause notice, dated 30.06.2015, was issued, the inaction of which is complained in this Writ Petition, was set aside in Writ Petition No.18094 of 2015, which was confirmed in W.A.No.1006 of 2015 and further, as the petitioner failed to prove that respondent No.3 is raising construction in the land owned by him and also in the teeth of the report of the licensed Surveyor, this Court holds that the petitioner miserably failed to substantiate his case for grant of the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. 13. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner sought to direct the authorities to take action pursuant to the notice dated 30.06.2015, thereby stopping and demolishing the building constructed by respondent No.3 in the subject land i.e., in an extent of 315 square yards situated at FCI Area, Sagar Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 14. After filing of the present Writ Petition, as narrated above, much water has flown under the bridge and in all the cases, the petitioner was unsuccessful to substantiate his case, particularly, in view of dismissal of OS.No.23 of 2015 filed by him for declaration of title over the subject land and the report of the licensed Surveyor, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition no longer survives for adjudication. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.