IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 24896 of 2008 BETWEEN: A. Satish Babu S/o. Balraj, R/o. 10-5-338/4, Tukaram Gate, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 GHMC, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner L.B. Nagar , Zone 2 The District Collector, R.R. District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not processisng the petitioners application and granting permission for construction over piece of land in Plot No. 132 and 136 admeasuring 600 forming part of Sy.No. 71 and 72 situated at Ward No. 8 Block NO. 3 Karmanghat Village, under L.B. Nagar Municipality , R.R. District , insisting on no objection certiﬁcation from Respondent No. as being arbitrary illegal, and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondent NO.1 to grant permission for construction in my favour over Plot No. 132 and 136 admeasuring 600 sq. yds., forming part of Sy.No. 71 and 72 situated at Ward No. 8 Block NO. 3 Karmanghat Village, under L.B. Nagar Municipality , R.R. District without insistiang on no objection certificate from Respondent No.2 and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VIJAY B.PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR. R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SC FOR MCH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Mr. A. Satish Babu, assailing the action of the ﬁrst respondent in not receiving the building permission application on the ground of not enclosing No Objection Certiﬁcate (NOC) from the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District – second respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the Plot Nos.132 and 136 admeasuring 600 sq. yards forming part of Sy.No.71 and 72 situated at Ward No.8, Block No.3, Karmanghat Village, L.B. Nagar Municipality. He submitted a building permission application to the ﬁrst respondent but the ﬁrst respondent refused to entertain the building permission application on the ground of not enclosing NOC form the District Collector – second respondent. 3. When the matter came up for admission, Sri R. Ramchandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD DISTRICT[1] wherein it was held that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad cannot refuse to receive and sanction the building permission merely on the ground that the owner has failed to produce NOC from the revenue authorities. 5. In view of the settled proportion of law that the ﬁrst respondent cannot refuse to receive the building permission application on the ground of not enclosing NOC from the District Collector, the writ petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to entertain the building permission application of the petitioner without insisting production of NOC, if the said application is otherwise in accordance with the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Rules and bye-laws thereudner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J November 13, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in one week. (B/o) DSK [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600