HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22476 of 2011 Date:09.08.2011 Between: D.Sudhakar ..... Petitioner AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Reptd., by its Chief Commissioner, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for Respondents : Sri C.Damodar Reddy Standing Counsel for the GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not receiving and processing the petitioner’s application for grant of building permission in respect of premises bearing H.No.1-3- 183/39/1, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, on the ground that the same is not accompanied by TSLR and No Objection Certificates from the revenue authorities as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the final order of this Court, dated 07.06.2010, in Writ Petition No.15013 of 2011 and submitted that the said Writ Petition was disposed of following the judgment in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited V. Collector, Hyderabad District and another[1], wherein it was held that the Municipal Corporation is not entitled to refuse to receive the applications for building permissions on the ground that they are not accompanied by No Objection Certificates from the revenue department. Learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation representing the respondents, has not disputed this position. In view of the same and following the previous orders of this Court referred to above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to receive the application of the petitioner for building permission without insisting on TSLR and No Objection Certificates from the revenue authorities and process the application by considering the prima facie title and other relevant documents that may be produced by the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.27425 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09thAugust, 2011 DR [1] 2001(3) ALT 200