Bazaar, Hyderabad v. 4 Assistant City Planner, Circle 1, Charminar, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to resubmit
Provisions considered
Judgment
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court Made the Following : This writ petition is filed to declare the order of the 1st respondent in Memo No. B3/1111/2004 dated 1.4.2004 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct respondents 3 and 4 to consider the building application of the petitioner for construction permission in respect of premises No.17-1-305/1/A/21, Edi Bazaar, Hyderabad without insisting for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the 1st respondent in accordance with the building bye-laws under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
Issue Rule nisi. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the house property bearing No.17-1-305/1/A/2/a, admeasuring 400 square yards situate at Edi Bazar having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 19.4.2000. Since the said house was an old one, he approached the 3rd respondent for obtaining a building construction permission and as per their instructions, he has also applied to the 1st respondent for issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’. By the impugned orders dated 1.4.2004, the request of the petitioner was negatived by the 1st respondent on the ground that the property of the petitioner was classified as ‘G.Dargah Shareef’ and therefore the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Hence this writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased an existing old house through registered sale deed and therefore there is no reason to reject the request of the petitioner for granting ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the 1st respondent.
Operative part
It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Vs.District Collector[1], the Municipal Corporation is not having any right or authority to insist for production of ‘No Objection Certificate’. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that as per the judgment in Hyderabad Potteries’s case (1 supra), the petitioner has to produce the entries in the TSLR for the purpose of issuing a building permission and if the petitioner produces such material, the Municipal Corporation has no objection for considering the application of the petitioner for sanction of building permission for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has readily agreed. In the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to resubmit his application for sanction of building permission to the 3rd respondent along with the entries in TSLR and thereafter respondents 3 and 4 shall consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application for sanction of building permission in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. //True copy// Assistant Registrar
16..06..2004 Section Officer Msv To 1 1 District Collector, Hyderabad District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. 3 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 4 Assistant City Planner, Circle 1, Charminar, Hyderabad. 5.2CCs to Government pleader on usual terms 6.CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.NO.9566 OF 2004 Dated 16-06-2004 [1] 2001(3) ALD 600
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to resubmit
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Jun 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.