Allowed

Sri. M. Satyanarayana v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Telangana HC1 Jun 2010WP/12069/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the requirement of a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector for a re-construction application. Applying a prior judgment, this court directed the respondents to process the application without demanding the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to receive and process the application without insisting on the No Obstruction Certificate from the District Collector.

Sri. M. Satyanarayana Vs Greater Hyderabad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12069 of 2010

1^st June 2010

Between:

M.Satyanarayana

… PETITIONER(S)

and

Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Special Officer & Commissioner situated at BRK Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and another

¶9

… RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.12069 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard Sri Mohd. Rafeeuddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶14

The petitioner questions the action of the respondents in not receiving his application for re-construction of a house in the place of the existing old house on the ground that a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector was not enclosed thereto. The petitioner would contend that such a condition, for production of the No Objection Certificate, is contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Rules and the byelaws made thereunder.

¶15

Both counsel would agree that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is covered by a judgment of this Court in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD DISTRICT AND ANOTHER^[1] wherein it was held that the local authorities could not insist on production of a No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities for considering the application seeking permission to construct a building.

¶16

Following the said judgment, this Writ Petition is also disposed

¶17

of directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to receive and process the application of the petitioners without insisting upon her furnishing the No Objection Certificate from the District Collector. Respondent nos.1 and 2 shall, however, ensure that the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Rules and Regulations, the building byelaws and other statutory provisions are adhered to in considering the petitioners’ application for grant of building permission.

¶18

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶19

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 1^st June 2010 CVRK

¶20

[1] 2001 (3) ALD 600

Sri. M. Satyanarayana v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Satyanarayana v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anapu Padma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Bethanaboyina Venkataramaiah, Vs Sri Poluri Surendra Babu, Managing Trustee

K.Shameer Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Abeda Begum Saheba Vs Greater Hydrebad Municipal Coproration

Shaheda Begum, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Laminated Packing Private Ltd., Vs The Greater Hyderabad Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation