IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13944 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Syed Rasheed Hussain, S/o. Syed Jaffar Hussain R/o. H.No.1-7-138/2, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Rep. by his GPA, (i) Mr.G.Koteshwar Rao, S/o.Late G.Venkateshwarlu, R/o. Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. (ii) Mr. Ch. Anil Kumar, S/o. Ch. Yadagiri, R/o.Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad. 2 Mr. Syed Vaquer Hussain, S/o. Mr.Syed Jaffar Hussain R/o. H.No.1-7-138/2, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by his GPA (i) Mr. C.Prathap Goud, S/o. C.Rajaiah Goud, aged: 34 yrs R/o. Peddamangalam (V), Moinabad (M), Ranga Reddy dist., (ii) Mrs. N. Shailaja, W/o. Mr.N.Amarender Goud, aged: 47yrs R/o. H.No.16-10-159/A, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P. 3 Mr. Syed Shakeel Hussain, S/o. Mr. Syed Jaffar Hussain, R/o. H.No.1-7-138/2, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by his GPA (i) Mr.N. Amarender Goud, S/o. N.Yella Goud, aged: 53 yrs, R/o.16-10-159/A, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P. (ii) Mr. Shaganti Jaichandra, S/o. C.Rajaiah, aged: 64 yrs, R/o. Flat No.308, Sai Sharada Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, HYD. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Hyderabad District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction, more or particularly writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to receive the application of building sanction submitted by the petitioners without insisting for No Objection Certificate from the 3rd respondent and issue sanction for construction of the building in properties (1) House bearing Municipal No.16-10-261/2, consisting of ground floor and first floor, admeasuring 190.00 Sq.yrds or equivalent to 158.86 meters situated at Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P., (2) House bearing Municipal No. 16-10-261/2/A, consisting of ground floor and first floor, admeasuring 184.00 Sq.yrds or equivalent to 153.84 meters situated at Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P. and (3) House bearing Municipal No.16- 10-261/2/B, consisting of ground floor and first floor, admeasuring 209.10 Sq.yrds or equivalent to 153.84 meters situated at Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, by declaring the action of 1st respondent in not receiving and considering the application for building sanction submitted by petitioners in respect of properties (1) House bearing Municipal No.16- 10-261/2, consisting of ground floor and first floor, admeasuring 190.00 Sq.yrds or equivalent to 158.86 meters situated at Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P., (2) House bearing Municipal No. 16-10-261/2/A, consisting of ground floor and first floor, admeasuring 184.00 Sq.yrds or equivalent to 153.84 meters situated at Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, A.P., and (3) House bearing Municipal No.16-10-261/2/B, consisting of ground floor and first floor, admeasuring 209.10 Sq.yrds or equivalent to 153.84 meters situated at Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, by insisting on No Objection Certificate from the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to law apart from being in violation of the provisions contemplated under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MS. I.MAAMU VANI Counsel for the Respondents: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC, SNCZONE) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13944 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are three in number, assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not receiving the building permission application submitted by them and insisting for No Objection Certificate from the District Collector – 3rd respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another[1], wherein it has been held as follows: “Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more.” In view of the settled proposition of law, the action of the respondents in insisting for ‘No Objection Certificate’ cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to receive and consider the building permission application filed by the petitioners, without insisting for No Objection Certificate, subject to the compliance of other conditions stipulated in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 1st July, 2008. IBL [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600