IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25123 of 2008 Between: K. Jayamma W/o. Late K. Balaiah R/o. H.No.1-3-758, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Town Planning Officer, Circle - XVIII, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, having office at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to receive application, proposed layout plan and building permission and permit fee from the petitioner and to sanction layout and to issue building permission without insisting for No Objection Certiﬁcate from the 2nd respondent, District Collector to raise construction in the lands under Sy.No.184 admeasuring Ac.2.06 guntas, Sy.No.185 admeasuring Ac.2.06 guntas, sy.No.186 admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas and Sy.No.195 admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas totally admeasuring Ac.5.13 guntas situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad, and consequently direct the 1st respondent immediately to receive the application for sanction of layout and building permission along with copies of proposed layout plan and permit fee from the petitioner for sanction of layout and issuance of construction permit to the petitioner in respect of land under Sy.No.184 admeasuring Ac.2.06 guntas, Sy.No.185 admeasuring Ac.2.06 guntas, sy.No.186 admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas and Sy.No.195 admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas totally admeasuring Ac.5.13 guntas situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad, strictly in accordance with the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt. K. Jayamma with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the ﬁrst respondent to receive building permission application without insisting ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector Ranga Reddy District-second respondent. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.2.06 guntas, in S.No.184, Ac.2.06 guntas in S.No.185, Ac.0.11 guntas in S.No.186 and Ac.0.30 guntas in S.No.195 totally admeasuring Ac.5.13 guntas situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad. In the year 2003 Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.337, dated 2.06.2000, whereunder the land in S.No.207/AA is designated as ‘Residential’ use zone. He approached the oﬃce of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for permission to construct a residential building. The ﬁrst respondent has orally informed to him to secure ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, this Writ Petition assailing the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not receiving building permission application and insisting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the third respondent. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned standing counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra, and it is squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan[1] and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. District Collector, Hyderabad[2]. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 does not contradict the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the ﬁrst cited case of Division Bench of this Court held when once the petitioner established their possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the second respondent-MCH should have granted permission in favour of the petitioner for construction of building instead of driving him to ﬁrst respondent-Collector to obtain ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’. Obtaining of ‘No Objection Certificate’ arises only when any law presupposes. Mere circular or an executive order informing the petitioner to obtain ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ before asking for conversion of land etc., has no legal sanctity, because there is no such statutory provision which compels the MCH to insist a person seeking permission to construct a building to obtain and produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Collector. In view of the settled proposition of law the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to produce ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’ from the District Collector-third respondent cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing respondents 1 and 2 to receive the building permission application of the petitioner without insisting for ‘No Objection Certiﬁcate’. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. It is left open for respondents 1 and 2 to process the application of the petitioner if the same is otherwise in order as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Building Bye-laws made therein. No order as to costs. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 15th November, 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days. (B.o) Js. [1] 2000 (4) ALD 126 (DB) [2] 2001 (3) ALT 200