D. Eramma v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to receive and process the application of the petitioner for building permission without insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities/District Collector. No order as to costs.…
Judgment
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8290 of 2012
O R D E R: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing respondent Corporation.
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not receiving the application for building permission in respect of the house property of the petitioners H.No.18-2-450/1, admeasuring 64.00 square yards or 53.51 square metres, situated at Falaknuma, Jangammet, Hyderabad, by insisting on production of No Objection Certificate issued by the District Collector/Joint Collector, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of Article 14 of constitution of India and also against the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents to receive application for building permission without insisting upon No Objection Certificate from the District Collector/Joint Collector and grant building permission to the petitioners.
The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property H.No.18-2-450/1, admeasuring 64.00 square yards or 53.51 square metres, situated at Falaknuma, Jangammet, Hyderabad, by virtue of Release Deed executed by Dandu Venkatesh dated
20.12.2011, vide registered Release Deed Document No.4552/2011, dated 20th December 2011. In order to construct a building in the above said house premises by removing the existing old house, the petitioner approached the respondents with necessary documents for grant of building permission, but the respondents have not received the said application on the ground that the application is not accompanied by No Objection Certificate issued by the District Collector or Joint Collector. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.
Both the counsel have submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.29183 of 2009 dated 31.12.2009 whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to receive and process the applications of the petitioners without insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to receive and process the application of the petitioner for building permission without insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities/District Collector. No order as to costs. Date: March 27, 2012. BSB _____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8290 of 2012 Date: March 27, 2012 BSB
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 14; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 27 Mar 2012. The bench was G CHANDRAIAH.
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.