ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the letter No.G1/KNP/TP/12/2013-14, dated 18.05.2015, issued by respondent No.5, refusing to grant permission for construction of commercial complex on the petitioner’s application dated 18.01.2013, inspite of the orders of this Court in WP.No.3383 of 2015, dated 22.04.2015, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to respondent No.5 to grant permission to the petitioner for construction of commercial complex pursuant to application dated 18.01.2013. 2. Heard Sri T.K.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the forefathers of the petitioner were Rajas of erstwhile Jataprole Samsthanam in Mahaboobnagar district; that they constructed a big palace in the present Kollapur town; that consequent upon abolition of Jagirs, the Respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.Ro.B5/6835/53, dated 26.03.1954 conferred title to the erstwhile Rajas to an extent of 90 feet from East-West and 556 feet from North-South, in addition to other sides of the palace. When the Respondent No.5 questioned petitioner’s title to the land in front of petitioner’s palace, petitioner filed suit in OS.No.56 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, for perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed vide Judgment and decree dated 05.02.2005 in favour of petitioner; and that the 5th respondent did not prefer any appeal against the said Judgment and the same has become final. 4. While so, the petitioner submitted application dated 18.01.2013 to the respondent No.5 seeking permission for construction of commercial shopping complex in front of the palace and the same forwarded to the respondent No.3 dated 12.06.2013 who directed respondent No.4 to inspect the site and submit proposals. Respondent No.4 submitted proposals vide letter Roc.No.1089/2013/HRO/H1, dated 24.09.2013 and basing on the said report, respondent No.3 accorded technical clearance as per G.O.Ms.No.168 MA, dated 07.04.2012, subject to certain conditions vide his letter No.D.Dis.No.6694/2013/H, dated 19.11.2013 to respondent No.5. 5. Respondent No.5 vide letter No.A2/85/2014, dated 03.02.2014 informed the petitioner about the conditions imposed by respondent No.3 and further stated that one G.Rajeshwaramma had submitted objection petition that she has got registered document No.1238/94, dated 30.05.1994, in respect of open plot No.3 admeasuring 400 square yards in front of Raja Palace on Eastern Side. 5. Respondent No.5 vide letter No.A2/85/2014, dated 03.02.2014 informed the petitioner about the conditions imposed by respondent No.3 and further stated that one G.Rajeshwaramma had submitted objection petition that she has got registered document No.1238/94, dated 30.05.1994, in respect of open plot No.3 admeasuring 400 square yards in front of Raja Palace on Eastern Side. It is further informed to the petitioner that one more objection petition was filed by one Bore Mahesh and 11 others to cancel permission granted by respondent No.3 as the subject land is a GP land left for public purpose since 100 years. In response to the said letter dated 03.02.2014, the petitioner sent reply dated 28.07.2014, clarifying that Smt.G.Rajeshwaramma filed suit before Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, against Commissioner for delaying permission for construction of house; and that the land disputed by Smt.G.Rajeshwaramma is 400 square yards only, whereas petitioner proposed to construct a shopping complex in the land admeasuring 5119.48 square meters, respondent No.5 can grant permission leaving the disputed land of 400 square yards. 6. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.5 on his application, dated 18.01.2013, despite compliance of all objections, petitioner filed WP.No.3383 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2015, disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.5 to take a decision in pursuance of the reply filed by the petitioner dated 28.07.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 7. It is further averred that despite the orders passed in WP.No.3383 of 2015, respondent No.5 vide his letter dated 18.05.2015, refused to grant permission for construction of commercial complex on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish title over the subject property. The petitioner submitted representation dated 12.06.2015 to the respondent No.5 clarifying his title over the subject property and requested to reconsider his application for permission. However, the same was not considered and aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.5 passed the impugned order without considering the petitioner’s title or the material submitted by the petitioner evidencing his title over the subject property; that the said order was passed under the influence of local political leaders who are inimical towards the petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.5 passed the impugned order without considering the petitioner’s title or the material submitted by the petitioner evidencing his title over the subject property; that the said order was passed under the influence of local political leaders who are inimical towards the petitioner. He further submits that the local MLA, being a political rival of the petitioner, is influencing the official respondents, which is evident from marking of a copy of letter no.558/2014/H dated 20.10.2014, addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, to local MLA, though it is an internal communication between official respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 granted technical clearance after being satisfied with the petitioner’s title and other requirements. Therefore, respondent No.5 ought not to have passed the rejection order dated 18.05.2015, as the role of respondent No.5 is limited to ensuring compliance of certain conditions imposed by respondent No.3. He further submits that respondent Nos.3 and 5 are required to examine only the prima facie title and possession of the applicant while considering an application seeking permission for construction, and that they are neither empowered nor required to adjudicate upon the title of the applicant. He further submits that the petitioner had filed O.S. No.56 of 1996 in respect of the same subject property, and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2005, therefore, the grounds on which the impugned rejection order dated 18.05.2015 was passed are baseless, that the petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 12.06.2015 clarifying all relevant aspects; however, respondent No.5 failed to consider the same. By contending this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the writ petition. 10. No counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5. However, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5 on written instructions would submit that the petitioner has failed to show his title over the subject property and is relying upon sketch map/plan which is attached to the proceedings of the District Collector dated 26.03.1954. The said proceedings does not refer to the subject property and it only refers to item Nos.1 and 2 which are towards northern side of the palace, whereas, present subject property is situated towards eastern, southern and western side of the palace. The said proceedings does not refer to the subject property and it only refers to item Nos.1 and 2 which are towards northern side of the palace, whereas, present subject property is situated towards eastern, southern and western side of the palace. He further submits that the subject land is being used for public purpose for more than 100 years and that there are objection petitions filed in respect of subject property. He also submits that while granting technical clearance, the respondent No.3 imposed certain conditions including the condition that Gram Panchayat shall scrupulously examine the title aspect and also clearance of Court litigation if any. He further submits that one of the villagers filed suit against the petitioner and the same is pending and there are also objections by the villagers that the subject land is being used by the villagers and therefore, respondent No.5 is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for permission, vide impugned order and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Consideration: 11. A perusal of record would disclose that petitioner is claiming title of the subject property principally basing on the proceedings of District Collector, Mahaboobnagar dated 26.03.1954. The erstwhile Rajas of Jataprole Samsthanam submitted an application to declare the following properties as his private properties. i. Vacant site adjoining the palace compound wall and elephant stable and the private road to the palace. ii. Narrow strip of the land adjoining the engine room and coach shed with a septic tank etc. iii. A small piece of land in front of the work shop and rice mill in which there is a long stone tub. iv. Vacant site known as Rajabhavi Garden with an inner compound which was used by ancestors as a grave yard and where cinema hall is located. 12. it appears that pursuant to the above application, Jagir Administrator inspected the property as mentioned therein and given his report/decision vide his letter No.529/GS dated 08.03.1954. Basing on the said report, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 26.03.1954, which reveal that item Nos.1 and 2 were allowed to be retained by erstwhile raja as part of the palace as these lands serve no public purpose and being adjacent to the palace, if their use is allowed for any other purpose, it would cause encroachment of palace. Basing on the said report, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 26.03.1954, which reveal that item Nos.1 and 2 were allowed to be retained by erstwhile raja as part of the palace as these lands serve no public purpose and being adjacent to the palace, if their use is allowed for any other purpose, it would cause encroachment of palace. a) Insofar as item No.3 is concerned, the same was declared as ‘administrative land’ as it was used as cart stand and for other public purposes and thus the same is an ideal place for park and hence it was taken over by the Government. b) Insofar as item No.4 is concerned, the same was declared as ‘private property’ and was allowed to be retained by erstwhile Raja, with a condition that if the same is required for public purpose, it will be acquired by paying nominal compensation. c) Thus, vacant side adjoining Palace compound wall and elephant stable and the private road to the palace, narrow strip or land adjoining the engine room and coach shed with a septic tank are declared as ‘private properties’ of erstwhile Raja of Jataprole. d) Vacant site known as ‘Rajabhavi Garden’ with an inner compound, which was used by ancestors as grave yard and where cinema hall is located, was also declared as private property. However, with a condition that if the same is required for public purpose, the same will be acquired by paying nominal compensation. 13. It is relevant to refer the Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2005 passed in OS.No.56 of 1996. The said suit was filed for perpetual injunction against respondent No.5 in respect of vacant site on all sides of Palance bearing no.1-10-115. In the said Judgment, it is observed that the father of the petitioner sold vacant site on the Northern side of the Palace to various persons through registered sale deeds and that the purchasers have also constructed houses and shops by duly taking permission from Gram Panchayat, Kollapur. 14. The measurement of the vacant site on all sides of the palace bearing No.1-10-115 adjoining the compound wall of the palace are as follows; Eastern Side (front side) 90’-00 ft. from East-West 556’-00 ft. from North-South Southern Side: 70’-00 ft. from North-South 751’-00 ft. from East – West Western Side: 26’-00 ft. from West-East 661’-00 ft. from North-South Northern side: At elephant stables side 115’-00 ft. from East-West 556’-00 ft. from North-South Southern Side: 70’-00 ft. from North-South 751’-00 ft. from East – West Western Side: 26’-00 ft. from West-East 661’-00 ft. from North-South Northern side: At elephant stables side 115’-00 ft. from North-South 304’-00 ft. from East-West. At engine room side: 120’-00 ft. from North-South 295’-00 ft. from East-West. 15. The said suit was decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2005 granting injunction in favour of petitioner against respondent No.5 herein. In the said suit, respondent No.5 claimed a part of suit schedule property as Gram Panchayat property, however, none were examined on behalf of respondent No.5 and no material was placed on record in support of the said claim. 16. It is also evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner submitted application dated 18.01.2013 for construction of commercial shopping complex in front of his palace, to respondent No.5 and the same was forwarded to respondent No.3 who directed respondent No.4 to inspect the site and submit proposal. Accordingly, respondent no.4 submitted proposals vide letter dated 24.09.2013 and basing on the said proposal, respondent No.3 accorded technical clearance vide letter dated 19.11.2013 with certain conditions. Respondent No.5 who is the executive agency had addressed letter dated 03.02.2014 informing the petitioner about the conditions imposed by respondent No.3 and also observed that G.Rajeswaramma raised objection that she has got registered sale deed in respect of open plot No.3, admeasuring 400 square yards which is in front of Raja Palace at eastern side. 17. It is also relevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in WP.No.3383 of 2015 dated 22.04.2015, wherein this Court observed that respondent No.5 took more than one year to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 18.01.2013 and though the petitioner has complied with all the objections raised by the respondent No.5, the respondent No.5 sat idle on the application made by the petitioner, which shows the laxity on the part of the respondent No.5, and this type of attitude on the part of respondent No.5, cannot be appreciated. 18. It is further evident that apart from objections of G.Rajeswaramma, another objection was also filed by one B.Mahesh and 11 others stating that the subject land is a Government land left for public purpose since 100 years. 18. It is further evident that apart from objections of G.Rajeswaramma, another objection was also filed by one B.Mahesh and 11 others stating that the subject land is a Government land left for public purpose since 100 years. Though B.Mahesh and others raised objections that the subject land is Gram Panchayat land and meant for public purpose, no material is placed on record to substantiate the same. Therefore, in the absence of any material, the objections raised by B.Mahesh and others cannot be considered and the same cannot be made basis for rejecting the application of the petitioner for construction. 19. It is also relevant to note that neither respondent No.5 which is a local authority nor other respondents filed counter and no material is placed on record on behalf of respondents to disprove the claim of the petitioner. Though, respondent No.5 is claiming the subject land to be Gram Panchayat land, no material is placed on record to substantiate the said claim. Insofar as the objection petition filed by G.Rajeswaramma is concerned, petitioner submitted reply dated 28.07.2014 stating that permission may be accorded leaving open Plot No.3, admeasuring 400 square yards, being claimed by her under registered sale deed. 20. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad this court held that the commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or ownership. All that the commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined only for the purpose of granting permission and nothing more. 21. It is pertinent to note that in K. Pavan Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad it is held that, the commissioner cannot be compelled to decide the title dispute if it is complex in nature and he is empowered to proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant for grant of permission. 22. In the light of the above settled legal position, the authority while considering the application for permission has to only verify the prima facie title and possession of applicant and it cannot examine in detail the title or dispute, if any, in respect of the subject property. 23. 22. In the light of the above settled legal position, the authority while considering the application for permission has to only verify the prima facie title and possession of applicant and it cannot examine in detail the title or dispute, if any, in respect of the subject property. 23. In the present case, the petitioner traces his title from the proceedings dated 26.03.1954 of respondent No.2 as per which, vacant side adjoining Palace compound wall and elephant stable and the private road to the palace, narrow strip or land adjoining the engine room and coach shed with a septic tank are declared as ‘private properties’ of erstwhile Raja of Jataprole. The suit filed by the petitioner in OS.No.56 of 1996 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Nagar Kurnool, against Respondent No.5 in respect of subject property and other properties was decreed vide Judgment dated 15.02.2005 and no appeal has been preferred by respondent No.5 and therefore, the same has become final. The material placed on record by the petitioner and Judgment and decree dated 15.02.2015 in OS.No.56 of 1996 prima facie prove the title and possession of the petitioner in respect of subject property except to the extent of open plot No.3 admeasuring 400 Sq.Yards claimed by G.Rajeswaramma. Whereas, no material or evidence has been placed on record on behalf of respondent No.5 as well as the objectors to substantiate their claim that the subject property is Gram panchayat land and that it is meant for public purpose. Conclusion: 24. In the light of the above discussion and legal position, the letter No. G1/KNP/TP/12/2013-14, dated 18.05.2015 is arbitrary, and the same is set aside. Consequently, respondent No.5 is directed to process the application dated 12.06.2015 submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for construction of commercial complex, in accordance with law, without reference to the objections raised by B.Mahesh and others, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.