IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20045 of 2007 Between: Dasana Nalini, W/o. Dasana Parameshwarudu, R/o. at Jabez Lane, Bidderford, ME 04005 U S A, Rep. by its General Power of Attorney Holder Rawar Gopal S/o. of Balaiah, Retired Government Servant, R/o. H.No.12-2-709/35, Navodaya Colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Chief City Planner, Circle No. III, Greater Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate, Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the entire action of the Respondents in refusing to receive and process the Petitioners application for granting building permission for construction of building in premises House Bearing No. 1-8-257 and 1-8-258 situated at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad on the sole ground that it is not accompanied with no objection certificate from the Revenue Authorities, as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid by this Hon'ble Court and consquently direct the respondents herein to receive and process the application of the Petitioner for granting building permission without insisting NOC from the Revenue authorities and also without reference to entries in T S L R certificate and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20045 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Manamus directing the respondents to receive the application of the petitioner seeking permission for construction of building in the premises bearing Nos.1-8-257 and 1-8-258, situated at Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipality. 3. Both the learned counsel submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.12496 of 2006, reported in DR.G.ANAND KUMAR REDDY AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[1], wherein this Court held as follows: “It is stated that the petitioners’ vendor purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 02-09-1974 and their vendor’s vendor purchased the said property through registered sale deed dated 05-01-1973. It is also stated that the petitioners in order to construct residential house in the said property, approached the 2nd respondent office on 17-06- 2006 with building application form enclosing all the required documents as per Act, Rules and Regulations, but the 2nd respondent refused to receive the building application on the ground that No Objection Certificate (NOC) obtained from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, had not been enclosed to the building application. It is stated that though repeatedly it was held that such Certificate cannot be insisted upon, the 2nd respondent is insisting for such Certificate, which is totally unsustainable and in view of the same the petitioners had approached this Court for issuance of appropriate writ. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No.15373 of 2004, dated 27-08-2004, District Collector v. N.Krishna Mohan, 2000 (4) ALD 126 and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. District Collector, Hyderabad, 2001 (3) ALD 600. In the light of the same, it is clear that the authorities refusing to receive the building application on the ground that No Objection Certificate obtained from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, had not been enclosed to the building application, cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as this question is not in serious controversy, the writ petitioners are bound to succeed.” 4 . Since the insisting of N.O.C. from the respondents for considering building permission application has been held as unjustified, the respondents are directed to entertain the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for construction of the building in the premises house bearing Nos.1-8-257 and 1-8-258, and pass appropriate orders thereon. With the above mentioned direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ June 19, 2008 KVR [1] 2006 (4) ALD 657