Mohd Nawaz Hussain v. The Joint Collector Hyderbad District Nampally Station Road
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to the application submitted by issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in the petitioner on not receiving 27.11.2008 for construction of building in respect of property bearing Mpl H.No.18-8-221/10/1 Riyasath Nagar Hyderabad admeasuring 533 sq.yards as illegal, arbitray and contrary to the HMC Act 1955 and also in violation of principles of Articles 14 and 21and 300A of constitution of India and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently not to insist the petitioner for submission of NOC.
In similar circumstances, in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited, v. Collector, Hyderabad District , this Court has already [1] held that the production of No Objection Certificate is not necessary for construction of a building. In the light of the said judgment, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the second respondent to receive the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 27.11.2008 for construction of building in property bearing Municipal House No.18-8-221/10/1, situated at Riyasath Nagar, Hyderabad, admeasuring 533 square yards, without insisting for production of No Objection Certificate. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated:17.12.2008 GJ [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600
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.