IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15977 of 2008 Between: R.B.Dasari S/o.Dasari Somashekara Rao R/o.H.No.1-6-237, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, GHMC Office, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Lr No.686/7/1/2/2/8/2008 dated 5.7.2008 of the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 11.6.2008 for construction permission without insisting of no objection certificate from the Joint Collector, Hyderabad as per the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSITCE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15977 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by R.B.Dasari assailing the proceedings vide Lr. NO. 686/7/1/2/2/8/2008, dated 5-7-2008 issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-Respondent directing him to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Joint Collector. 2. The petitioner is owner of premises bearing Municipal No. 8- 2-686/7/1/2 comprising building and appurtenant land admeausirng 800 square yards in T.S.No.7/2, Sy.No. 129/48 of Shaikpet village. He purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 15-11- 2003 from Syed Sirajuddin. His vendor got the property under a registered gift settlement deed dated 11-12-2000 from Syed Ameenuddin. The petitioner approached the respondent with an application dated 11-6-2008 by paying necessary fee vide challan No. 65, dated 11-6-2008 along with plan and title deeds seeking building permission. The respondent rejected the application on the ground of not producing ‘No Objection Certificate’ vide proceedings Lr. No. 686/7/1/2/2/8/2008, dated 5-7-2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent cannot insist production of ‘No objection Certificate’ in view of the settled proposition of law by this court in Subash Kumar Lohade Vs. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1] and Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Collector Hyderabad District[2].. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondent 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. It is well settled that the respondent cannot insist for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ for considering the building permission application. A division Bench of this Court in Subash Kumar Lohade’s case (1st cited) held that the Municipal Corporation cannot insist ‘No Objection Certificate’ for sanction of lay out and construction of building within Corporation area. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the judgment and it is thus: “The quashing of the said Circular does not, however, mean that the Corporation has no power to take cognizance of the letter of the Collector, or her objection. The Corporation shall keep in mind the said general objection while sanctioning the layouts with respect to lands in Banjara Hills area *Shaikpet village) including the plan referred to in the Collector’s letter, if and when communicated and in each, such case, satisfy itself that the applicant for sanction of layout is the owner of the land, as contemplated by the Layout Rules and the Zoning Regulations; it shall sanction the layout only if it is satisfied in that behalf, after making such enquiry as it thinks appropriate. The Corporation shall also have the power in such a situation, to call upon the Collector to submit his specific objections, if any, and any other documents which the Collector may wish to produce in support of his objection. It is, however, for the corporation, or the appropriate authority of the Corporation, as the case may be *authority competent to sanction the layout under the Layout Rules and the Zoning Regulations), to look into the matter and determine whether the applicant is the owner of the land, or not. Any finding or conclusion arrived at by the authority in this behalf shall, of course, be subject to the decision of a Court. It is reiterated that the determination of the authority on the above aspect shall be valid only for the purpose of the sanction of layout, and nothing more”. 6. It is also held by a Division Bench of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries case (2nd cited) that the Municipal Corporation cannot insist production of No Objection Certificate from the District Collector for considering the Building Permission Application. 7. In view of the proposition of law laid down in the above referred case, the objection raised by the Respondent under proceeding impugned in the writ petition with regard to production of No Objection Certificate cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the Building Permission Application of the petitioner without insisting production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector. No order as to costs. _____________________________- Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 24th July, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSITCE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 15977 OF 2008 24th July, 2008. [1] AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 352 [2] 2001(3) ALD Page 600