THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8521 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st petitioner purchased a plot of 600 sq. yards carved out of Sy.Nos.167/18 and 168/1 & 2 EE of Dommarpochanpally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a document dated 26-12-1991. The 2nd petitioner purchased a plot of 400 sq.yards carved out of the same land, through a document of the same date, from the pattadar of the land, viz., Middela Rami Reddy. The petitioners availed the benefit of regularization of their lay-out, and approached the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, the 5th respondent herein, by filing an application. The 5th respondent insisted that a No-objection Certificate, issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, the 2nd respondent, be produced. Therefore, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent with an application. Remarks were called for by the 2nd respondent from the Tahsildar, Qutbullapur, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division. Through their proceedings dated 11-08-2008 and 23- 08-2008, respectively, the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer observed that the plots purchased by the petitioners are located in a patta land, in Sy.No.167/AA, and that it is not covered by Inam, Assignment, Wakf or Endowment etc. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, mentioned in his remarks dated 09-09- 2008, that the classification of the land is shown as Biladakala. Taking that into account, the 2nd respondent issued a memo dated 05-10- 2008, refusing to issue no objection certificate. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 5th respondent as well as the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad are insisting on submission of no objection certificates from the District Collectors, with a view to avoid the unauthorized encroachments over the Government land, and development thereof. On being insisted by the 5th respondent, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent with an application. Remarks were called from the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer. After verification of the records, they have clearly mentioned that the plots purchased by the petitioners are carved out of patta land. In addition to that, they mentioned that the land is not part of assignment, or wakf, or endowment. The 2nd respondent ought to have taken the same into account and issued certificate accordingly. The sole basis for the 2nd respondent in refusing to issue no objection certificate through the impugned memo is, that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records stated that the classification of the land is Biladakala. By its very nature, the expression connotes the lack of certainty. If the land is held by private individuals, it has to be mentioned as patta, and if it belongs to Government, the classification be shown as Sarkari, R.S Khatha, Poromboke etc. Biladakala, by itself, is not a classification of the land. The authorities of the survey department have to go by the certification issued by the Revenue Authorities, as to the ownership, possession etc. Independently, they cannot come to any conclusion. Once the revenue authorities, viz., Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer certified that the land is part of patta, a stray and vague entry in the survey records cannot constitute the basis for denying no objection certificate. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned memo is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, based upon the certification made by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer through their proceedings dated 11-08-2008 and 23-08-2008, respectively, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 28-04-2009. KO