IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28727 OF 2011 Dt:31-10-2011 BETWEEN: Jahangir Khan and others …. Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., rep, by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28727 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents 5 to 7 in not receiving the applications of petitioners for building permissions and insisting for No Objection Certificate (for short ‘NOC’) from respondents 2 to 4 with regard to retained land exempted by the 4th respondent authority to an extent of 1000 square meters or 1200 square yards of New Maredpally, Secunderabad covered by proceedings bearing No.F2/374/76, dt.16-12-1982 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 5 to 7 herein to receive and consider applications of the petitioners as per law. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the General Power of Attorney holder cum possessor and enjoyer of the land of an extent of Acs.2.07 guntas, situated in Survey No.74/8, Mahendra Hills, Maredpally, Secunderabad. Originally, one late Mansoob Jung Bahadur was the owner of agricultural lands admeasuring an extent of Acs.31.20 guntas, comprising of entire survey No.74/8. During his life time, he and his legal heirs sold away an extent of Acs.29.13 guntas to different people and thereafter the remaining extent of Acs.02.07 guntas was declared in favour of late Eraj Ahmed Khan, who lineally descended late Mansoob Jung Bahadur, vide a registered document bearing No.1643/78. The said Eraj Ahmed Khan died intestate leaving his legal heirs. The legal heirs of late Eraj Ahmed Khan appointed the 1st petitioner, as their General Power of Attorney to look after the remaining extent of land comprising of Acs.02.07 guntas and the said GPA was registered as document bearing 70/92, dated 21-02-1992. The GPA holder executed an unregistered sale deed on behalf of Nawab Babu Khan, son of late Eraj Ahmed Khan, in favour of the 3rd petitioner to an extent of 421 square yards and also executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd petitioner to an extent of 500 square yards. Since then, they are in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioners, further state that with an intention to raise constructions in the above said land, they made applications in requisite format along with necessary plans, to the respondents 5 to 7. But, the respondents 5 to 7 did not receive the applications made by the petitioners on the ground that the said land was covered by proceedings of the 4th respondent authority vide proceedings No.F1/375/76, dated 29-05-1987. It is further stated by the petitioners that from the proceedings No.F2/374/76, dated 16-12-1982 it is very clear that an extent of 1200 square yards was retained by the declarant, or otherwise the 4th respondent was bound to exempt 1200 square yards from out of the total land, that they purchased the plots from out of the retained land of 1200 square yards, therefore, the respondents are bound to receive the applications made by petitioners for constructions, without insisting for NOC from the respondents 2 to 4. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Dr.G. ANAND KUMAR REDDY AND ANOTHER v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[1]. Hence, he prays to give a direction to receive the applications made by the petitioners for making constructions. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also stated that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court. 6. The relief sought for in this writ petition is that the petitioners filed an application for building permission for making constructions, for which the respondent Corporation is insisting to produce the No Objection Certificate from the respondents 2 to 4 with regard to retained land, exempted by the 4th respondent authority, to an extent of 1000 square meters or 1200 square yards of New Maredpally, Secunderabad covered by proceedings No.F2/374/76, dated 16-12- 1982. It seems that the petitioners while filing the application for seeking permission to construct the residential houses, enclosed all the required documents as per the Municipal Corporation Act and Rules & Bye-laws made thereunder. The respondents 5 to 7 are not receiving the application on the ground that NOC from the respondents 2 to 4 is not produced. In the similar circumstances, this Court in the decision reported in Dr.G. Anand Kumar Reddy’s case (supra) held that: “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.” 7. Following the said judgment, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 5 to 7 to receive the applications of the petitioners for building permission, without insisting on production of NOC from the respondents 2 to 4 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 31, 2011. KTL [1] 2006(4) ALD 657