IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6360 of 2009 Between: Suresh Mohan Oberoi S/o. Late A.S. Oberoi Juhu, Mumbai-49, State of Maharashtra, Rep. by his General Power of Attorney Dhanraj SIngh S/o. Chottam Singh, Aged 47 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 13-1-754/A, Anitha Towers, Andhra Colony, Mangalhat, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collecor, Hyderabad Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad. 4 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad Rep. by its Commissioner and Special Officer. 5 The Chief City Planner Town Planning Section, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 18-3-2009 in proceedings No. N1/382/2009 issued by the 1st respondent and also to declare the Order dt. 24/26-3-2008 vide Lr.No. 0012/CSC/TP9/2008/996 issued by the 5th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary without any authority of law and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner dt. 5- 1-2008 and 7-1-2009 for issue of permission for construction of multistoried building Stilt + 5 Floors in premises bearing D.No. 3-6-767, Street No. 13, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, without insisting for production of No Objection Certificate from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6360 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application on 05.01.2008 before the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the fourth respondent herein, with a request to accord permission to construct stilt + 5 upper floors in premises bearing No.3-6-767, Street No.13, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. The Chief City Planner, the fifth respondent herein, addressed a letter, dated 24/26.03.2008¸ to the petitioner refusing to accord permission and returning the unapproved plans. Two reasons, namely, that the width of road at the site is less than 9 meters, and that a letter was received from the Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal raising an objection regarding the property, were mentioned. The petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District[1], the rejection of application cannot be sustained in law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has been insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities, as a condition precedent, for considering the application for grant of permission, to construct buildings. This Court considered the matter in detail in the case of Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited (supra), and it was held that the insistence on filing of No Objection Certificate cannot be sustained under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 or other provisions of law which had a bearing on the subject matter. In his communication, dated 24/26/03.2008, the fifth respondent stated two reasons, namely, (1) that the width of the road is less than 9 mts., and there is no proposal to widen it and threby it is not permissible for construction of stilt + 5 upper floors, and (2) that letter, dated 23.01.2008, was received from Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal, not to grant permission without NOC from Joint Collector, Hyderabad. The second objection is clearly opposed to the judgment rendered by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited. In case, the petitioner is able to satisfy the objection as to the width of the road, respondents 4 and 5 would be under obligation to consider the matter, afresh. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the proceedings, dated 24/26.03.2008, and directing respondents 4 and 5 to consider the matter afresh without reference to ground No.2 mentioned in the said proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.26.03.2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600