IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.22767 of 2010 1. S.Jayamohan 2. S.Vijaya Mohan .. Petitioners. Vs. 1. The Commissioner Villivakkam, Panchayat Union, Ambattur 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to process petitioners' applications dated 27.08.2010 for planning permission and issue plan for the Survey No. 14/5B, Ramapuram Village, Chennai-89 without insisting upon No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vembadiyan For R1 : Mr.I.Paranthaman For R2 : Mr.A.Vijayakumar O R D E R The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to process petitioners' applications dated 27.08.2010 for planning permission and issue plan for the Survey No.14/5B, Ramapuram Village, Chennai-89 without insisting on, no objection certificate, from the 2nd respondent. 2. The facts, pleaded in the affidavit in support of the prayer, made above, are that the petitioners are the owners of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property, situated at Survey No.14/5B, Ramapuram Village, Chennai-89, measuring 3888 sq.ft. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent on the ground that the land under ownership of the petitioners stands acquired by Tamil Nadu Housing Board, therefore, the petitioners are not the owners of the property in dispute, as it vests with second respondent. 3. This stand of the second respondent is controverted by the petitioner, by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 3693 of 1986 (Venkanna Chowdry Charities vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) and other connected writ petitions, decided on 08.10.1991, vide which, notifications, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire lands, including that of petitioners, were quashed. 4. The stand of the second respondent is that the judgment would not be applicable to petitioners, as they were not party to the writ petition, as the judgment is in personam and not in rem. 5. This Court is not to decide question of ownership or validity of acquisition, as the only question raised in this petition is as to whether the first respondent can insist on no objection certificate from respondent No.2 before processing application, moved by the petitioners for sanctioning building plan. 6. The question as to whether the first respondent can insist upon no objection certificate from Tamil Nadu Housing Board stands decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 36111 of 2005, decided on 22.09.2006 in the case of S.Nalini vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and others. 7. In view of the above referred judgment, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the first respondent cannot insist on no objection certificate from the petitioner. The first respondent is to decide the application in accordance with law, and grant planning permission only on fulfilling all the requisite conditions. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' application for issuance of building plan permission in accordance with law without insisting on No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Commissioner Villivakkam, Panchayat Union, Ambattur 2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. 1 cc To Mr.M.Venbadiyan, Advocate, SR.4425 1 cc To Mr.I.Paranthaman, Advocate, SR.4472 1 cc To Mr.A.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.4563 W.P. No. 22767 of 2010 RSM (CO) RH (7.2.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/