ORDER : B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. Since these two writ petitions relate to the dispute concerning the same property and the parties are common, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order. W.P. No.23388 of 2020: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, in issuing the endorsement in RoC.No.HO/G1/E-100375/2019-20 dated 08.12.2020 rejecting his application dated 03.06.2020 filed for cancellation of building permission issued to respondent No.5 vide permit No.3006/13465/W49/2018 dated 15.11.2018 for construction of building in the land in Survey Nos.573 and 581 situated at Waddepally Village, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Urban District, without conducting any hearing and without recording valid reasons, as being illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Mr. P. Narotham Reddy, petitioner - Party-In-Person, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Mirza Saifullah Baig, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4, and Mr. Mummineni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner - Party-In-Person, submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plots admeasuring 783 square yards and 300 square yards, total admeasuring 1083 square yards in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581/2(new) situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.8143 of 2011 dated 11.11.2011 and 8589 of 2011 dated 23.11.2011 from the previous owner Mr. Kasubojula Sambaiah S/o. Rajaiah. 4. It is submitted that originally, Mr. Pingili Ranadheer Reddy S/o. Vijaypal Reddy was the pattadar and possessor of the land in Survey No.573 and 581(new) situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, which is his ancestral property. That one Mrs. Anumula Kommala had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-36 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581(new) from Mr. P. Ranadheer Reddy; the father of vendor of the petitioner, Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah, purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas from Mrs. Anumula Kommala under simple sale deed dated 14.08.1980. Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah executed registered will deed bearing document No.1 of 2006 dated 21.03.2006 in favour of his son, Mr. K. Sambaiah. Thereby, Mr. Kasabojula Sambaiah became absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581(new). Kasabojula Rajaiah, purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas from Mrs. Anumula Kommala under simple sale deed dated 14.08.1980. Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah executed registered will deed bearing document No.1 of 2006 dated 21.03.2006 in favour of his son, Mr. K. Sambaiah. Thereby, Mr. Kasabojula Sambaiah became absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas in Survey Nos.573 (old) and 581(new). When there was interference by respondent Nos.2 and 4 with the land in Survey No.573 (old) 581/2 (new) for the purpose of laying road, Mr. K. Sambaiah filed W.P. No.28753 of 2008, which is disposed of, by the order dated 29.12.2008 directing respondents therein not to interfere with the said land without following due process of law. It is submitted that subsequently respondent Nos.2 and 4 conducted field enquiry and confirmed that there is no master plan and proposal for laying of the road in the said land. 5. It is submitted that having verified the title, the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1083 square yards under aforesaid two (2) sale deeds from Mr. Kasabojula Rajaiah. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 having obtained sale deed bearing document No. 7758 of 2004 dated 12.08.2004 in respect of the land admeasuring 140 square yards in Survey No.581 (new) and 573 (old) from Dr. H. Suresh Clement through his AGPA Mr. R. Sammaiah, has fabricated the sale deed by showing wrong measurements. It is contended that link documents of respondent No.5 do not tally with the boundaries shown in the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2004. In fact, there is no forty (40) feet road as shown in the documents and it is at a distance of seventy (70) feet away from the said plot; it is thus submitted by the petitioner that basing on the false documents respondent No.5 obtained LRS proceedings vide No.LRS/C1/549/2012/308 dated 22.05.2018. The plot of respondent No.5 was regularized by the Municipal authorities without conducting physical inspection and verifying his title. 6. It is submitted that subsequently respondent No.5 obtained building permission vide permit No.3006/13465/W49/2018 dated 15.11.2018 for construction of residential building. When respondent No.5 tried to dig pits by encroaching the portion of the petitioner's plot, he submitted representation dated 25.04.2019 to respondent No.4 requesting them to cancel the LRS proceedings issued in favour of respondent No.5. 6. It is submitted that subsequently respondent No.5 obtained building permission vide permit No.3006/13465/W49/2018 dated 15.11.2018 for construction of residential building. When respondent No.5 tried to dig pits by encroaching the portion of the petitioner's plot, he submitted representation dated 25.04.2019 to respondent No.4 requesting them to cancel the LRS proceedings issued in favour of respondent No.5. When respondent No.4 issued show-cause notice dated 29.06.2020 to respondent No.5, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.11283 of 2020, wherein interim order dated 27.07.2020 was passed by this Court suspending the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2020 and respondent No.5 was permitted to proceed with the construction as long as the permission granted in his favour dated 15.11.2018 is valid and subsisting. 7. It is further stated that on the application of the petitioner dated 03.06.2020 submitted to respondent No.2 requesting to cancel the building permission issued to respondent No.5, impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020 was issued. There was no enquiry conducted by respondent Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the wrong boundaries and measurements shown by respondent No.5 in his sale deeds. Several documents have been filed by the petitioner to prove that respondent No.5 has misrepresented before respondent No.2 and obtained building permission based on forged and fabricated documents. Thus, building permission of respondent No.5 ought to have been cancelled under Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 (for short 'Municipalities Act 2019'). 8. Learned standing counsel for the GWMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, submitted that there is title/boundary dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.200 of 2012. The dispute between them cannot be decided by respondent No.2. On being satisfied with the prima facie title of respondent No.5, building permission was granted. Recently, the Municipal Corporation came to know that the petitioner has withdrawn the above suit vide order dated 18.11.2016. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that title dispute/boundary cannot be decided by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner having withdrawn the suit in O.S. No.200 of 2012 filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction cannot be permitted to pursue this writ petition. The scope of the writ petition is limited and title issues cannot be decided. 10. The petitioner - Party-In-Person submitted that building permission was granted to respondent No.5 on the basis of fabricated title documents furnished by him. The scope of the writ petition is limited and title issues cannot be decided. 10. The petitioner - Party-In-Person submitted that building permission was granted to respondent No.5 on the basis of fabricated title documents furnished by him. When the fraud played by respondent No.5 was brought to the notice of respondent No.2 by him, respondent No.2 ought to have conducted detailed enquiry. The detailed representation submitted by the petitioner and documents furnished by him were not considered and impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020 was passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. 11. The impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020 reads as under: “With reference to your Application cited, it is to inform you that the Building Permission was granted to Sri T.Lingamurthy S/o. Bhadraiah vide permit no.3006/13465/W49/2018, dt. 15-11-2018 for construction of Building in Sy. No. 577 & 581 of Waddepally (v), situated opposite to Forest Office, Subedari Main Road, Hanamakonda on satisfying his prima facie title over the site under reference and basing on the valid site approval issued by the Competent authorities i.e., LRS Approval issued by the KUDA vide Proc. No.LRS/C1/549/2012/308, Dt: 22-05-2018. Whereas you are requesting for cancellation of the Building Permission on the basis of the ownership aspects of the site under reference, which does not come under purview of this office and is to be decided by the competent Civil Court. Further, it is to inform you that the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad vide its order dt. 16-09-2020 in W.P. No. 15663/2020 have ordered the Respondent Corporation not to interfere with the construction work. In view of the above, your objection petition is hereby rejected and you are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to redress grievance regarding ownership.” 12. The petitioner referred to boundaries of respondent No.5 in his representation and also relied on Ex.P11, which is rough sketch plan showing the boundaries and their measurements of the subject property. It is contended that Ex.P11 Plan clearly shows that respondent No.5 has tampered title documents and the boundaries and measurements. Had reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, then the alteration of boundaries/measurements and misrepresentation made by respondent No.5 would have been properly explained by him. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that Ex.P11 was not part of the record or the representation submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.2. 14. Had reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, then the alteration of boundaries/measurements and misrepresentation made by respondent No.5 would have been properly explained by him. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that Ex.P11 was not part of the record or the representation submitted by the petitioner before respondent No.2. 14. Learned standing counsel for the GWMC submitted that the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation is governed by the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 , wherein, Section 176(9) empowers the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, to revoke the building permission if it is found that it was obtained by making false statement or misrepresentation of any material facts or violation of rules. 15. In the opinion of this Court, the issue raised by the petitioner with reference to change of boundaries/measurements and obtaining of building permission and LRS for the plot of respondent No.5 by misrepresentation were not considered in detail by respondent No.2 in the impugned endorsement dated 08.12.2020. Moreover, the petitioner is relying on Ex.P11 sketch plan to support his case that respondent No.5 has tampered the boundaries and measurements of his plot. Ex.P11 was not part of the record in the impugned endorsement. Thus, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to respondent No.2 for de novo enquiry. 16. In view of the above submissions, without entering into the merits of the case, on the sole point of violation of principles of natural justice, endorsement issued by respondent No.2 in Roc.No.HO/G1/E-100375/2019-20 dated 08.12.2020 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct de novo enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent No.5 and all other concerned/interested persons, and pass orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to them. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with regard to the title of the petitioner and respondent No.5 over the subject property, and respondent No.2 shall pass orders without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Further, status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the subject property till conclusion of enquiry by respondent No.2. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.