THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6136 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Endorsement No.N1/18377/2008 dated 20.12.2008 issued by second respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. It appears, the second respondent issued the impugned endorsement purported to be under G.O.Ms.No.1133 Revenue (Assn.III) Department dated 13.6.2005, G.O.Ms.No.2111 dated 5.12.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.93 dated 28.1.2006. Under the above referred G.Os., a committee was constituted consisting of the District Collector, Hyderabad, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Deputy Director, Survey Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad and Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad for the purpose of issuing No Objection Certificates for construction of houses and apartments in the city of Hyderabad stating that the land on which the houses or apartments are sought to be constructed are not Government lands. This measure seems to have taken to avoid land grabbing/encroachment and mis-utilisation of Government land in the Hyderabad district. While that being so, fifth respondent seems to have applied for No Objection Certificate in respect of open land admeasuring 1600 sq.mtrs. in Sy.No.578/4, Shivam Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad which falls in T.S.No.5/1,Block-A, Ward 163 of Amberpet village, which was classified as patta land. It is not the case of the Committee constituted under the above G.Os., which issued impugned endorsement that the subject land is a Government land. Therefore, issuing of NOC cannot be found fault with, but except saying that it is not a Government land, it has recorded some findings, which would affect the interest of the parties. Hence this writ petition. The learned senior counsel Sri D.Prakash Reddy, appearing for petitioners, stated that the committee may examine the claims of the parties and make an endorsement or issue NOC indicating that a particular land is not a Government land, but the committee cannot make observations. For the purpose of considering sanction of building plan by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the committee cannot say that the NOC is subject to third party claim, court litigation, if any and subject to registration/validation as mentioned in the HIBA. According to the learned counsel, this is not desirable in the teeth and object of above referred G.Os. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 Sri J.Sudheer strenuously contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the G.P.A. executed by the petitioners is not valid and it was executed for the purpose of transaction in respect of 2420 sq.yards, out of which 1500 sq.yards was already acquired by the Government and in respect of other 691 sq.yards of land, sale deeds were already executed in favour of others. Therefore, the GPA is not valid as of today in respect of this land and this land is altogether different from the land, against which the power of attorney is given by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the GPA holder has no locus-standi to fight this litigation. In this regard, the learned counsel drawn the attention of the Court to various litigation between the parties before the Civil Courts and Sale Deeds executed by power of attorney holder and stated that in view of those sale deeds, the GPA has already been worked out and the GPA holder could not have filed the present writ petition. Whereas the learned senior counsel drawn attention of the Court to the replies filed, wherein it was categorically asserted that the subject land of 1600 sq.mtrs. as pointed out by the petitioners and fifth respondent is not different one and they are one and the same. The boundaries of the land are not delineated in the power of attorney and the power of attorney executed by the petitioners is valid for the purpose of this litigation. I am of the considered opinion that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into the validity or otherwise, of the power of attorney, executed by the petitioners. The existence of power of attorney is not in dispute. If there is any dispute as to boundaries and overlapping of area and as to the validity of power of attorney, it is open for the respondents to approach the Civil Court and work out their remedies. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the observations made in the impugned endorsement that “for the purpose of considering sanction of building plan by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad subject to third party claim, court litigation, if any and subject to registration/validation as mentioned in the HIBA” are valid or not. It has to be seen whether the committee has power to adjudicate upon or comment or make observations, which may have serious consequences in the civil disputes pending between the parties. The only examination the committee needs to make is whether the land in question, against which NOC is sought, is a Government land or not. The committee is empowered to make only such enquiry as required for the purpose of issuing NOC whether the particular land is a Government land or not. Nothing more and nothing less. Assuming that the Governmental Orders under which the committee is constituted, in any manner directly or indirectly permits the committee to make such observations, such observations does not stand the scrutiny of law. Any observations made in the impugned endorsement may have serious repercussions in working out their rights by the parties. Whether there is any litigation pending between the parties, which is the subject matter of any Court litigation or third party claims, there is no necessity for such observations to be made by the committee. In a given case, may be it is for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to examine under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act while granting sanction of building plan to enquire into such matters and it is not for the committee. In this particular case, it is interesting to notice that it is stated that the NOC is also subject to registration/validation of land as mentioned in HIBA. In fact, there is a serious dispute as to the very existence of HIBA etc. between the parties. Therefore, any such observations made by the committee are uncalled for. I am of the opinion that the observations made by the committee, as noticed above, are not within the purview of the committee to make. Under those circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the impugned endorsement dated 20.12.2008 issued by the second respondent is valid only to show that the subject land is not a Government land and any other observations made therein shall not have any bearing whatsoever on the rights of the parties herein. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.11.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6136 of 2009 24.11.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6136 of 2009 Date: 24th November, 2009 Between: Ahmad Mohiuddin Shariff & others. .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents