HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26302 of 2010 Date: 19-1-2011 Between : M/s.India Telecom Infra Limited .. Petitioner And The Gram Panchayath, represented by its Executive Officer, Nadargul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sreenivasa Rao Velivela Counsel for respondent : Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, Standing Counsel The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner felt aggrieved by cancellation of “No Objection Certificate” dated 25-3-2010 by the respondent. It has sought for a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the erection of Cell tower in premises bearing No.14- 149, Plot No.3, S.No.762, Sri Sainagar colony, Nadargul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. At the hearing, it is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in M.Balram Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited [1] wherein this Court has held as under: “I have carefully examined the provisions of Section 99 and I am of the view that the said provision is attracted only where the owner or occupier of any building proposes to put up verandahs, balconies, sunshades, weather frames and the like to project over a public road vested in such Gram Panchayath. The learned counsel also relied on Section 121 of the Act in this regard. The said provision is not attracted either, because it pertains to the requirement of permission to be obtained from the Gram Panchayath for construction of a building. Section 2(3) of the Act defined ‘building’ as including a house, outhouse, shop, stable, latrine, shed (other than a cattle shed in an agricultural land), hut, wall and any other such structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material whatsoever. In my opinion, a metallic structure, which does not have any characteristic of house, out-house, shop, stable etc., does not fall within the definition of building. The words “whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material” used in the said definition were preceded by the words “such structure” which necessarily means the structures such as house, out-house, shop, stable, latrine, shed etc., as mentioned in the earlier part of the definition. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is rejected.” In the light of the reasoning contained in the above Judgment, the need for the respondent to issue “No Objection Certificate” does not exist and consequently its cancellation is wholly inconsequential. The respondent cannot interfere with the petitioner’s erection and maintenance of Cell tower having regard to the law laid down in the above mentioned Judgment. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 19-1-2011 AM [1] 2010(6) ALD 34