THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION CASE No.15070 of 2007 Date:15.09.2009 Between: Mohd Amer Mehdi. ..Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. ..Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION CASE No.15070 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the memo bearing No.N1/3101/05 dated 09.07.2007 issued by the second respondent to the extent of refusing to issue ‘No objection certificate’ (NOC) is illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the second respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner in respect of his property bearing H.No.22-3-947/3 situated at Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the property mentioned above and is residing in the said property; that originally, his mother – Smt. Sogra Binthe Omer Bin Ali Bin Ziyaad purchased the property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.99/82 dated 16.01.1982; that O.S.No.676 of 1982 was filed by Mukharm Jah Trust for Education and Learning for declaration to an extent of 80.63 mts against one Yousif Ali and his (petitioner’s) parents, who were defendant Nos.2 and 3 therein; that the said suit was compromised by judgment and decree dated 15.09.1993, whereby his parents were declared as the exclusive owners and possessions of the property; that since 1982 his mother became the absolute owner and possessor of the property and she conveyed the property under a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.412/2005 dated 21.03.2005 in his favour; that he intend to construct a new building in the said property by demolishing the old structures and as it is necessary to obtain NOC from the second respondent, he applied for the same on 06.04.2005; that the second respondent, in the course of enquiry, found that the entries in the town plan survey records in respect of the petitioner’s property were erroneous and addressed a letter dated 01.12.2006 to the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records – third respondent herein for taking necessary action for correction of TSLR records; that since there was delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2625 of 2007 for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to correct the TSLR entries in respect of his property and issue NOC to him; that the said writ petition was disposed of on 23.03.2007 directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take immediate action pursuant to letter dated 01.12.2006; that thereafter the second respondent by collecting the information from the departments concerned and upon depth enquiry, issued a memo dated 21.06.2007 requesting him to clarify the discrepancy with regard to his property and also whether Mukharm Jah Trust for Education is a Trust vested by law so as to take further action in the matter; that after receipt of the said notice dated 21.06.2007, he submitted his clarification on 28.06.2007 to the second respondent and that the second respondent by impugned memo dated 09.072007, with the delay of more than two years from the date of his application for NOC, refused to issue NOC to him on the ground that it is not possible to issue such certificate until correction is made in TSLR record in accordance with law. Though the second respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made in the writ petition, it does not assert that the property in question is Government property. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment dated 25.02.2009 rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.14000 and 14026 of 2007, and submitted that in the said judgment, this Court, while considering the similar issue, observed that the rights of the Government are to be discerned from a more liable material than an erroneous survey and that in Sogra Begum vs. State of A.P.[1], a Division Bench of this Court, after making a reference to the judgment in W.P.No.25727 of 2000, took the view that the entries in TSLR cannot be treated as conclusive proof of title or lack of it, and therefore, W.P.Nos.14000 and 14026 of 2007 were allowed and the second respondent was directed to examine the matter afresh without reference to the survey record and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of said judgment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.02.2009 rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.14000 and 14026 of 2007 and accordingly this writ petition is also liable to be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to examine the matter afresh without reference to the survey record and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) 15th September, 2009 GHN [1] 2002 ALD Supp.1 539