THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.844 of 2002 & 1191 of 2002 WRIT APPEAL No.844 of 2002: The District Collector, Hyderabad & 2 others. …..Appellants-Respondents. And Smt. Ismath Sultana & another. … Respondents WRIT APPEAL No.1191 of 2002: The District Collector, Hyderabad. …..Appellant-Respondent in W.P. And A.Ravinder & 3 others. … Respondents COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) These two Writ Appeals raise a common issue for consideration, i.e. the validity of the State and the municipal authorities in insisting upon a ‘No Objection Certificate’ prior to consideration of a building application basing on the entries in the Town Survey records. Such insistence was questioned in both the Writ Petitions, W.P.No.19496 of 1998 and W.P.No.18779 of 2001. 2. In W.P.No.18779 of 2001, the learned Judge, by order dated 29-10-2008, rejected the contention urged on behalf of the Government authorities that the entry in the Town Survey Land Register should be taken into account for recognizing the land as Government land and that the denial of the ‘No Objection Certificate’ based on such entry was valid. 3. The learned Judge, conscious of the principles laid down in a catena of decisions, one such being HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD [1], held that the entries in the Town Survey Land Register are not determinative of the character and title of the land. Stating so, the learned Judge also left it open to the Government to claim the land, if it belongs to it, in accordance with law. 4. Similarly, in W.P.No.19496 of 1998, the learned Judge, by order dated 17-09-2001 held that the rejection of the building plan application of the petitioner therein, on the ground that the same was not accompanied by a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Collector, was not valid. In this case also, it was the stand of the Government that the premises in question was recorded as Government land in the Town Survey Register and therefore it has to be treated as Government land. 5. In both the Writ Petitions, the learned Judge directed consideration of the petitioners’ applications for building permission without insisting upon ‘No Objection Certificate’, leaving it open to the Government to claim the land if it belongs to it, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the settled proposition of law that the entries in the Town Survey Records are not determinative of the title of the parties, the stand of the Government authorities, basing on such entries, cannot be accepted. The judgments referred to by the learned Judge in the orders under appeal, clearly negatived the stand sought to be projected once again by the learned Government Pleader before us. However, it is always open to the Government, in the event the land is perceived to be Government land, to approach the competent forum by invoking appropriate remedies available to it in law. 7. With the above observation, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 17th August, 2009. Tsy [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600