IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19212 of 2008 Between: Gopu Venugopal Rao, S/o. G. Durga Vara Prasada Rao, R/o D-39, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner and Special Officer, Town Planning Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, having office at Tankbund, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, having Office at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 1st respondent to receive application, proposed plan and permit fee from the petitioner and to issue construction permit without insisting for No Objection Certiﬁcate from the 3rd respondent to enable the petitioner to raise construction in the land total admeasuring Ac. 4.20 gts. (Ac. 1.24 gts in Sy.No. 206/AA and Ac.2.36 gts in Sy.No. 207/AA) situated at Madinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently direct the 1st respondent immediately to receive the application for construction along with copies of proposed plan and permit fee from the application for construction along with copies of proposed plan and permit fee from the petitioners and to issue construction permit to the petitioners in respect of land total admeasuring Ac. 4.20 gts. (Ac. 1.24 gts. in Sy.No. 206/AA and Ac.2.36 gts in Sy,No. 207/AA) situated at Madinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19212 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Gopu Venugopal Rao with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to receive the building permission application, without insisting ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District-3rd Respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac. 4-20 guntas in Survey Nos. 266/AA and 207/AA, situated at Madinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the year 2003 Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 337, dated 2-6-2000, whereunder the land in Survey Nos. 266 and 207 are designated as Residential Use Zone. The petitioner approached the oﬃce of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for permission to construct a multi storied residential apartment. 1st Respondent has orally informed to the petitioner to secure ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not receiving building permission application and insisting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the 3rd respondent. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned standing counsel appearing for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of respondents NO.1 and 2. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing of the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is no more res- integra, and it is squarely covered by the judgments passed in District Collector, Hyderabad Vs. N. Krishna Mohan[1] and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Ditrict Collector, Hyderabad[2]. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 does not contradict the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the ﬁrst cited case of a Division Bench of this Court held when once the petitioner established their possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the 2nd respondent-MCH should have granted permission in favour of the petitioners for construction of buildings instead of driving them to 1st respondent-Collector to obtain ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’. Obtaining of ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ arises only when any law presupposes. Mere circular or an executive order informing the petitioners to obtain ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ before asking for conversion of land etc., has no legal sanctity, because there is no such statutory provision which compels the MCH to insist a person seeking permission to construct a building to obtain and produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Collector. 8. In view of the settle proposition of law the action of the respondents insisting the petitioner to produce ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector –3rd respondent cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive the building permission application of the petitioner without insisting for ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. It is left open for respondents 1 and 2 to process the application of the petitioner if the same is otherwise in order as per the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Building Bye-laws made therein. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 5th September, 200. Note: C. C.in three days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19212 OF 2008. 5th September, 2008. [1] 2000(4) ALD 126 (DB) [2] 2001(3) ALT 200