IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12549 of 2009 Between: Syed Najmuddin S/o.late Syed Mohinuddin R/o.H.No.19-2-360, Kalapather, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad. 5 Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad. 6 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 7 Syed Ibrahim Hasan Kazmi H.No.10-5-391/54/120, Syed Nagar II, Near New MLA Colony, First Lancer, 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 to issue any writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement in No.11/9243/2008, dt. 23.11.2008 of the respondents 2 and 3 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void as the same is beyond the powers conferred on the respondents 2 and 3 herein and for a consequential direction to the 6th respondent herein not to release sanction of building plan in favour of the 7th respondent herein in respect of lands in Sy.No. 219, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.12549 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. It is directed against an endorsement bearing reference No.11/9243/2008 dated 23-11-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent on a petition by the 7th respondent. According to the petitioner, Syed Mohiuddin was the owner of an extent of Ac.12.00 in Sy.No.219 and 220 (Old No.391) Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad having purchased the property from Sarfekhas Mubarak, Awal Talukdal, Atraft Balda in F-1334 (about 1924). Mohiuddin died in 1968 and during his life time executed a memorandum of gift settlement dated.31.12.1965 in favour of the petitioner, his three brothers and three sisters. Pursuant to the above instrument of gift, the petitioner claims joint ownership of the property along with his brothers and sisters of an extent of Ac.12.00. The petitioner alleges that the 7th respondent, who is totally a stranger and has no nexus with the property but claiming ownership of the lands and with a view to obtain a building permission from the 6th respondent, approached the 2nd respondent for issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC). Though this court had held that a municipality cannot insist on a NOC from the revenue authorities as a condition precedent for considering a citizen’s application for a building permission, for some abstruse reasons municipalities continue the outlawed practice of insisting on NOC. The revenue authorities also pursue the exercise of this vacuous power and a practice not recognized in law but not prohibited either insofar as grant of endorsement by the revenue authorities is concerned. On the 7th respondent’s application the 3rd respondent issued the impugned endorsement, which reads as under:- “The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is hereby informed that the request for issue of NOC in respect of Sy.No.219, Road No.5, Banjarahills, Hyderabad for an extent of 18,000 sq.mts is examined. The Tahasildar, Shaikpet has reported that the land applied for issue of NOC falls in T.S.No.4 and 6, Block.E, Ward No.11, correlated to Sy.No.219/391 and 179/362 of Shaikpet village and Mandal of Hyderabad. The applicants have applied for issue of NOC to an extent of 18,000 sq.mts. But as per the ground position there is only an extent of 13,886 sq.mts. It is informed that the land applied for issue of NOC is classified as not Government land. 2. This case is placed before the Committee constituted under G.O 4th and 5th cited in the Meeting held on 10-11-2008 and the Committee has approved the case for issue of NOC. Hence, this endorsement is issued only to an extent of 13,886 sq.mts for the purpose of considering sanction of building plan by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation subject to third party claim and court litigation if any. 3. The endorsement does not constitute any title or right over the said land. It is for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to verify the legal ownership and possession of the land by the applicant before approving the plan for construction of building. 4. This endorsement does not preclude cancellation of the endorsement and further action as per rules if it is found at later date that the land is Government Land or if any one else proves as rightful owners.” On 12-02-2008 the petitioner lodged an objection to the 2nd respondent stating that he and his siblings are the owners of the property in question in respect of which the 7th respondent had applied for NOC and that NOC should not be given to the 7th respondent as this would enable the 7th respondent to pursue with the 6th respondent for issuance of a building permission. The petitioner reiterated this objection by another letter dated.23-01- 2009. Sri M.V.Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the 3rd respondent acted without authority in issuing the impugned endorsement. The contention in specie, is that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to issue NOC; that they could not have issued NOC on the petition of the 7th respondent since the petitioner has title and possession of the property; and that the issue of NOC which is not required for obtaining a building permission would enable the 7th respondent to construct a building on the site belonging to the petitioner and his siblings without lawful entitlement to do so. None of the above contentions are relevant to the determination of the validity of the impugned endorsement dated.23-11-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. Though this Court has declared the principle that the municipality cannot insist on NOC from the revenue authorities as a condition precedent to consider grant of a building permission perhaps the municipalities continue illegally though to insist on NOC. Change and reform comes sluggishly even in the teeth of judicial declaration of law. To obviate the travail of endless litigation, a citizen who needs a building permission, confirms even to an unauthorized bureaucratic practice. The 7th respondent might have therefore approached the 2nd respondent for NOC. The 3rd respondent acting on a petition by the 7th respondent to the 2nd respondent issued impugned endorsement. The endorsement is in a very guarded and circumscribed language. It merely endorses that out of 18,000 square meters applied for, an extent of 13886 square meters in Ts No.4 and 6, Block.E, Ward No.11, correlated to Sy.No.219/391 and 179/362 of Shaikpet village, Hyderabad, is not government property. The endorsement further records a clear caveat that the certification is subject to third party claims and court litigation if any; does not constitute declaration of any title or right over the said land; and that it is open to the 6th respondent-GHMC to verify the legal ownership and possession of land by the 7th respondent (applicant) before considering the approval of any plan submitted by the said respondent for construction of a building. With all the caveats it is clear, the 3rd respondent has merely endorsed that the property is not government property. It is even the petitioner’s case that it is not government property. The dispute appears to be as to competing claims to title between the petitioner and the 7th respondent. Such competing claims as to title cannot be determined by the respondents 1 to 3 and the impugned endorsement does not either expressly or by any implication of the language of the endorsement profess to declare the title of the 7th respondent to the property. It merely endorses that the State is not the owner of the property, which is also the case of the petitioner. The petitioner’s apprehension that the impugned endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent issued at the instance of the 7th respondent may be employed by the 7th respondent in litigation is not an apprehension that can be alleviated by this Court. It is for the petitioner to take appropriate measures if aggrieved by any claim of the 7th respondent to the property in question. Public power required to be exercised cannot be suppressed or withheld on an apprehension that a legitimate exercise of such power may lead to litigation. This is not the law. On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 26th JUNE 2009 *TSNR