THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8817 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a Committee, registered for the protection of Hindu Graveyard, in the Moosarambagh area of Hyderabad. It feels aggrieved by the issuance of No-objection Certificate by the 1st respondent, vide endorsement dated 16-02-2009, in respect of the land in Sy.No.74 of Teegalaguda Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderbad. The petitioner contends that respondents 5 to 8 have brought into existence fake and fabricated sale deeds in respect of the land, which is owned by the graveyard, and steps are being taken by them, to construct multi-storied building in it. They plead that the respondents 5 to 8 are going to approach the 3rd respondent for grant of permission, and that the community at large would be adversely affected, if permission is granted and construction is made. Reference is made to several proceedings issued by the respondents 1 to 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, and Sri V. Sreeranga Rao, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8. The impugned endorsement dated 16-02-1999 discloses that it was made in respect of 3440 sq.meters of land, in T.S.No.60, Block-A, Ward-167 of Teegalguda Village, Saidabad Mandal, so as to enable respondents 5 to 8 to submit application before the 3rd respondent, for building plan. It has been clearly mentioned that the endorsement is subject to third party claims, and that it does not confer any title or right over the land. The responsibility to verify the ownership and possession over the land was said to be that of the 3rd respondent. Assuming that the petitioner had any right or claim over the land, it becomes difficult for this Court to adjudicate the same. It has already been mentioned that the impugned endorsement made it clear, that it does not confer any title. For the purpose of securing any prohibitory or declaratory relief, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is stated that the respondents 5 to 8 have filed a suit for injunction, and thereafter have withdrawn it. The petitioner was impleaded in it. In this background, there should not be any difficulty for the petitioner, to file a suit for necessary relief. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of Ssuit, before the competent Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-04-2009. KO