HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1125 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant, who is the petitioner in the writ petition filed this appeal seeking to assail the order of the learned Single Judge in disposing of the writ petition with certain directions with regard to the complying of objections raised on the application filed by him for building permission. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant made an application to the respondents for construction of the building over the property that was allotted to him subsequent to the dissolving of the firm. The said application made by the appellant herein was returned by the respondents with certain objections namely: 1) Registered documents under which he purchased the property for proposed site. 2) The land registration certificate issued by the Devasthanam Authorities which is the land purchased by the petitioner. 3) No Objection Certificate issued by the Devasthanam Authorities for the proposed construction of building. 4) The applicant is hereby informed to furnish the above information for taking further necessary action in the matter. The said action was assailed by the appellant by way of writ petition and the learned Single Judge had taken into consideration the respective submissions made by both the counsel, disposed of with the same direction to the appellant to comply with objection Nos 1, 2 and 4 pointed out in the proceedings B.A.No165/07/ACP-VI. Hence, the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that having regard to the fact that the appellant has got a title to the property, he submitted the plans for approval, and objection No.1 has already been complied with. Second objection is not clearly made as per bye-law. When the matter came up earlier, this court directed the respondent to file a counter-affidavit. Accordingly, the Commissioner for the respondent-Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit returning the appellant to file a Land Registration/Regularisation certificate. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant has to rectify the defects pointed out by the respondents for return of the building permission except no objection certificate. But this Court is of the view that how the other certificates are required by the authorities and under what provision. Therefore in the absence of specifically mentioning as to the legal foundation of such requirement, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to direct the appellant to comply with any such objections, when admittedly the appellant herein has already filed documents as to its title to the property, which can form basis for the purpose of considering his application for building permission. As far as the objection No.4 is concerned, it is only consequential to the three direction earlier three objections raised in the application. Therefore it is not necessary of delve into the said objection. Having regard to the fact that the appellant has already complied with objection No.1, we do not find any justification to insist upon the compliance of objections 2 and 4, nor there is any warrant to law to any such objection. Hence, the appeal is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the application for building permission without insisting upon the appellant for any of those objections ie., Sl.Nos.2 to 4 and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 15th October, 2008. PNV