THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1780 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in inisting for 'No Objection Certificate' from the third respondent-District Collector, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct respondents 1 and 2 to issue permission to him for installation of petrol filling station in plot No.733 situated in Old Sy.No.403/1 of Shaikpet Village. Petitioner states that he is the owner and the possessor of plot No.733 situated in old Sy.No.403/1 of Shaikpet Village having purchased from M/s. Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad, under document No.1676, dated 13.06.1991 and that he made an application to respondents 1 and 2 seeking permission for construction of petrol filling station. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there is no provision for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the third respondent as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the bye-laws made thereunder, respondents 1 and 2 are insisting for 'No Objection Certificate' without considering his application. Hence the writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the third respondent giving details with regard to the allotment of land to the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited and it is also stated that as per the entries made in the Town Survey Land Register, the plot of the petitioner was recorded as Government land and in view of the title disputes, he is not entitled for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'. I n Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad[1] , this Court has considered the identical issue and observed thus: "It is further held that the question of title and lawful possession of the applicants cannot be solely decided on the basis of TSLR entries, but also on the basis of any other relevant evidence that may be furnished by the applicants. It is thus clear that an entry in TSLR itself cannot be the conclusive proof of title or lack of it, and the decision either to grant or refuse permission cannot be taken solely on the basis of any entry made in the TSLR. It may be one of the factors that may have to be taken into consideration along with the other material available on record. An entry made in TSLR per se could not create any doubt or cloud on the right, title and interest of a person in respect of any land." In view of the aforesaid decision, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority i.e. Commissioner to consider the application of the petitioner along with the supportive documents with regard to the proof of title to be produced by him. However, it is to be noticed that there is no provision either under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or the Bye-laws made thereunder for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the District Collector for grant of building permission. Since the application of the petitioner is pending consideration before respondents 1 and 2, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission along with the supportive documents regarding proof of title, without insisting for 'No Objection Certificate' from the District Collector. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:05.08.2009 usd [1] 2001(3) ALD 600