ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondents in considering the representations dated 02.12.2013, 06.12.2013, 17.02.2014, 04.12.2014, 29.12.2014, 05.01.2015, 21.12.2015, 21.08.2017 and 25.10.2017, submitted by the petitioners and allowing illegal constructions in petitioner’s lands to an extent of Acs.13 – 22 gts in Sy.Nos.592 and 593 part, situated at Old Alwal Village (Saibaba Nagar), Alwal Circle, Alwal Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, without any valid permission from the competent authority as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of G.H.M.C Act and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 15. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, one Palla Narsimham, who is the grandfather of petitioners herein was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.18 – 01 gts, having acquired the same through a compromise decree dated 20.10.1978, in a partition suit vide O.S.No.80 of 1963, between his brothers; that he executed Family Settlement Deed dated 17.07.1980, between himself, his son and 7 daughters, as per which, Ac.1 – 00 gts was allotted to each daughter and the remaining to his son P.Vishwshwar Rao, however the property was not partitioned by metes and bounds and the same was in joint possession of petitioners’ family; that after the demise of Palla Narsimham, as disputes arose between the family members of the petitioners, they were compelled to approach the Court by way of filing a suit vide O.S.No.206 of 2008, on the file Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri District, for partition of subject property and the same was pending adjudication. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that petitioners neither sold the subject property to any third party nor executed General Power of Attorney (G.P.A) or any authorization in favour of anybody including P.Vishweshwara Rao and never applied for conversion of subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture and also not submitted any layout plan before competent authorities, however, several unauthorized persons/encroachers occupied the subject property and obtained permissions for construction by submitting false and fabricated documents and making illegal constructions in the subject property. The municipal authorities without verifying the title to the property and link documents, granting permissions for constructions; that petitioners submitted several representations dated 02.12.2013, 06.12.2013, 17.02.2014, 04.12.2014, 29.12.2014, 05.01.2015, 21.12.2015, 21.08.2017 and 25.10.2017, to respondents Corporation to take action against the illegal constructions being made in the subject property, but the same were not considered by the respondents Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 16 would submit that respondent Nos.5 to 16 are bona fide purchasers of plot which are developed in the subject property, having paid valid sale consideration to their vendors; that the vendors of the respondent Nos.5 to 16 started purchasing the subject plots from the year 2000 i.e., much prior to the filing of suit vide O.S.No.206 of 2008 and the plot owners formed into a Society named as ‘Sai Baba Nagar Welfare Association” and number of houses were constructed by duly obtaining building permissions from the respondents Corporation much prior to the interim Orders passed by this Court. He placed on record, copies of registered sale deeds, basing on which, respondent Nos.5 to 16 are claiming right over the subject property. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 by referring to the Counter would submit that the suit filed by the children of P.Narasimham, vide O.S.No.206 of 2008, on the file of Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri District, for partition of subject property was dismissed on 21.09.2022, with the following observation: “On careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 read with Exs.A1 to A16 and Exs.B1 to B25, it categorically established the fact that plaintiffs and defendants acted upon the Family Settlement Deed, accordingly they converted the land into plots and sold away the same to various people and that the prospective purchasers are in possession of the said land and there is no land as such as suit schedule property and the plaintiffs herein failed to establish that they were not given possession of the land as per the Family Settlement Deed as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any partition of the suit schedule properties as prayed for when there is no partition, the question of shares does not arise at all and issue No.2 and 3 is held against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant.” 7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 further submits that in view above findings, petitioners are not the owners of the subject property; that the total land covered in Sy.Nos.592 and 593 is Acs.27 – 14 gts, whereas, petitioners are claiming interest over Acs.13 – 22 gts in the said survey numbers, and have not mentioned the boundaries of the land being claimed by them; that unless and until petitioners identify their land on ground and erect a compound wall or fencing, it is very difficult for the respondents Corporation for not considering the applications for grant of building permissions. He further submitted that large number of houses were constructed over the subject property much prior to the interim Orders passed by this Court and it is for the petitioners to safeguard their property; that as and when a person approaches respondents Corporation by submitting a copy of registered sale deed, the respondent Corporation would grant permissions for construction based on the prima facie title and possession of such applicant. He further submitted that petitioners did not furnish particulars of the unauthorized constructions and that the respondents Corporation is neither empowered nor duty bound to get into the title issues of the petitioners and the alleged encroachers and prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the same is devoid of any merit. 8. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding filing of suit vide O.S.No.206 of 2008, for partition, by the children of late P.Narasimham and dismissal of the suit by the trial Court vide Judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022, and though an appeal in A.S.No.245 of 2023 has been preferred, against the said Judgment before this Court the same is pending adjudication. In the Judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022, the trial Court specifically observed that petitioners’ family members acted upon the Family Settlement Deed dated 17.07.1980 and converted the land into plots and sold away the same to third parties and that prospective purchasers are in possession of their respective plots and there is no land as such of plaint schedule property and thus, the petitioners have no right over the lands in Sy.Nos.592 and 593 as claimed by them. Even in the writ petition, petitioners neither mentioned the boundaries of the subject property nor gave the details of the encroachers as alleged by petitioners, therefore, without identifying or locating their land, petitioners cannot seek any relief in the writ petition. Further, third party rights have already been created in respect of the subject property in the year 2000 onwards and the subsequent purchasers i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 16 after obtaining necessary permissions from the respondents Corporation, constructed houses and are in possession of their respective houses. 9. The respondent Nos.5 to 16 have placed on record, copies of registered sale deeds and building permissions obtained by them in respect of their properties to prove their ownership and possession and thus, the contention of the petitioners that third parties have encroached upon the subject property and have made constructions without any valid permissions is untenable. The petitioners cannot seek direction to the respondents Corporation not to grant permissions to third parties in respect of subject property by submitting representations, without establishing their title and possession over the subject property. From the record, it is evident that the sales in respect of subject property have taken place since 2000 and structures have been raised by the purchasers duly obtaining permission from GHMC and whereas, suit for partition was filed in the year 2008. Furthermore, from the copies of sale deeds and photographs placed on record, it is evident that the subject property has been developed and has been converted into plots and it is no more an agricultural land even prior to filing of the suit for partition, however, in the suit, the subject property has been mentioned as agricultural land. Though, Appeal in A.S.No.245 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of suit i.e., O.S.No.206 of 2008, before this Court and the same is pending adjudication. 10. It is appropriate to note that it is a settled principle of law that while granting permission for construction, the Commissioner, GHMC has to only consider the prima facie title and possession of the applicant in respect of the property for which permission for construction has been sought for and the Commissioner cannot go into the disputed question of title of the property and adjudicate the same. 11. 11. In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad , 2001 (3) ALD 600 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the Commissioner is not empowered to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership over the property and he is only entitle to proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant seeking permission. 12. In K. Pavan Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad , 2008 (1) ALD 792 the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the Commissioner therefore cannot be compelled to decide the title dispute if it is complex in nature and he is entitled to proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant for grant of permission. 13. The Commissioner on being satisfied that respondent Nos.5 to 16 have prima facie title and possession over the subject property, has granted the building permission. Furthermore, this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot go into disputed question of facts and title disputes and also cannot sit in appeal over the decision of an administrative authority, i.e., Commissioner in granting permission 14. In the light of foregoing discussion and the legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no Order as to costs.