THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1831 OF 2006 DATED: 24-03-2006 BETWEEN M. Nagasayana Rao, S/o. M. Subba Rao, R/o. Flat No.5, Gayatri Towers, Gayatri Estates, Kurnool, Kurnool District. …PETITIONER AND Municipal Corporation of Kurnool, Rep. by its Commissioner, Kurnool, Kurnool District. …RESPONDENT ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in withholding his application seeking permission for construction of a residential house in Plot No.10, L.P.No.52/1999, Sy.No.755/A2A, Gayatri Estates, Gooti Road, Kurnool District dated 27.11.2004 for want of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Authorities as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his wife purchased the land in an extent of 266 sq. yards in Plot No.10 in L.P.No.52/99, Sy.No.755/A2A, Gayatri Estates, Kurnool District under a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.07.1998 from M/s. Tungabhadra Industries Limited, Kurnool for a valid sale consideration. At the time of sale, the lay out was not approved but subsequently the lay out has been approved as L.P.No.52/99. He further submits that the petitioner along with his wife has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same since then. The petitioner applied for permission, before the first respondent on 27.11.2004, for construction of residential house in the said plot in the prescribed proforma along with the plan, necessary fee of Rs.11,419/- and furnished a National Saving Certificate for Rs.200/- enclosing a Demand Draft for Rs.2000/- towards the licence fees. Pursuant to the said application, the first respondent addressed a letter dated 28.12.2004 to the District Collector seeking NOC for taking further action of the petitioner’s application. The learned counsel further submits that the District Collector has not responded to the letter of the respondent. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that at the first instance NOC is not at all required under any of the Building Bye-laws, Regulations and Relevant Rules but under Bye-Law 6.2 of the Municipal Corporations Building Bye-Laws, 1981 framed in G.O.Ms.No.905, Housing Administration and Urban Development (M.A.) dated 07.08.1981 it is for the municipal corporation to forward a copy of the notice (application) with the plan and site plan to the District Collector calling for his objections and if no such report is received from the District Collector or the concerned authority within 15 days, it is to be considered that the said authority has no objection for grant of permission. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the District Collector issued a circular in Rc.E4/391/1995 dated 06.03.2004 directing the Municipal Commissioners in Kurnool District not to approve any lay out plan without obtaining prior approval of the District Collector. I am of the opinion that if the District Collector has not acted upon to file his objections within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice (application) from the first respondent, it is not open for the first respondent to refuse to consider the application of the petitioner. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that this Court in WP.No.9868 of 2005 following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD, directed the Municipal Corporation of Kurnool to consider the application of the petitioner therein without insisting upon production of NOC from the District Collector. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose the application of the petitioner dated 27.11.2004 seeking permission for construction of residential house in Plot No.10 of the aforesaid layout in accordance with law without insisting upon NOC from the second respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 24, 2006 DSK