Disposed
Y. Satyawati v. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
Telangana HCWP/11547/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.11547 of 2012
Between:
Y.Satyawati … Petitioner and The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, GVMC Building, Visakhapatnam.
… Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.11547 of 2012
ORDER:
Questioning the action of the respondent in insisting to produce No Objection Certificate from the Defence authorities for permitting the petitioner to make construction of a building, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.10 admeasuring 211.45 square meters, in Hill Valley, Madhavadhara VUDA Colony, Visakhapatnam having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 23.12.1998. It is submitted that with a view to make construction of building, the petitioner made application on 01.11.2011 seeking to grant permission but the respondent authorities did not give any permission but orally asking to produce the No Objection Certificate from the Defence authorities for the purpose of processing the application.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 05.01.2012 passed in W.P. No.217 of 2012. He further submitted that only difference in the instant writ petition is that the No Objection Certificate is demanding from the Defence authorities and whereas the No Objection Certificate demanded in the referred order is from the NSTL.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent does not dispute the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
From a perusal of the order dated 05.01.2012 passed in W.P. No.217 of 2012, this Court passed the following operative order,
which reads as under.
“Therefore, the petitioner is directed to submit the relevant documents viz., site documents, soil test and structural design booklets to the respondents and thereafter, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the rules governing the sanction of building permission without insisting for NOC from N.S.T.L. authorities.”
Having considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and following the order dated 05.01.2012 passed in W.P. No.217 of 2012, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the relevant documents viz., site documents, soil test and structural design booklets to the respondent and thereafter, the respondent shall consider the same, in accordance with the rules governing the sanction of building permission, without insisting for “No Objection Certificate” from the Defence authorities.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 20.04.2012 LSK
Y.Satyawati
The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court