Allowed

Adla Ravinder v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC4 Jun 2010WP/12564/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition questioning the Corporation's rejection of a building reconstruction application due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate. Relying on a prior precedent, the court directed the Corporation to process the application without this certificate, ensuring adherence to statutory provisions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to receive and process the petitioners' application without insisting on the No Objection Certificate.

Adla Ravinder Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12564 of 2010

¶3

4^th June 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Adla Ravinder and others

¶6

… PETITIONER(S)

¶7

and

¶8

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad and others

¶9

… RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12564 of 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Heard Sri G.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶13

The petitioners claim to have succeeded to the property in house bearing No.1-7-778/3/8, admeasuring 319 sq. yards, situated at Zamisthanpur, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, from their parents and ever since they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. They question the action of the respondents in not receiving their application for re-construction of the common building in the place of the existing old building on the ground that a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector was not enclosed thereto. The petitioners 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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 of directing respondent nos.1 to 3 to receive and process the application of the petitioners without insisting upon her furnishing the No Objection Certificate from the fourth respondent. Respondent nos.1 to 3 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.

¶17

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

¶18

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4^th June 2010 CVRK

¶19

[1] 2001 (3) ALD 600

Adla Ravinder v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adla Ravinder v. The Commissioner

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

Bellakurthi Nagalakshmi Vs The District Collector

Surat Ganapathi Rao Vs the Settlement Officer Cum-Sub-Collector

D. Prabhakar Rao Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of

L. Koteswara Rao, Vs Chief Engineer

Sri Vegi Venkata Ratnam, Vs The Commissioner

The Vetapalem Milk Products Mutual Aided Co-operative Vs The Secretary, A.P. Co-operative Tribunal