S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners question the insistence by the 2nd respondent for submission of the consent of the Estate Officer, Secundera-bad, the 4th respondent herein, for consideration of their application for construction of shops and showrooms, etc. , and seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-consider and grant sanction of the construction plan with necessary modification without insisting on the consent of the 4th respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioners state that they are the owners of premises bearing door No. 4-2-25 to 28 and 32. R. P. Road in Secunderabad. The said property originally belonged to one K. Pentaiah and it devolved on them as per the will executed by him. The site is covered by lease deed No 3027 dated 20-8-1969 in favour of the said K. Pentaiah. After his demise, the petitioners applied to the 4th respondent herein claiming rights under the said lease by way of devolution under the will dated 10-11-1975 executed by the said K. Pentaiah and the 4ih respondent informed the petitioners that the records were amended to show that they were the present lessees in respect of the said plot. It is not in dispute that the said lease is valid upto 1999 and that it is renewable for another 30 years. The petitioners wanted to renovate the buildings in the said plot and accordingly got prepared plans and submitted the same to the 1st respondent on 22-1-1990 along with the necessary fee of Rs. 5,000/ -. The 2nd respondent by his letter F. No. 18/tp/sd/90-298 dated 12-2-1990, signed by him on 15-2-1990 and received by the petitioners on 23-2-1990, returned the said plans "unapproved", observing as follows :"as per lease conditions for obtaining the permission, you should submit the consent of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad and also proposals are in violation of Z. R. No. 11 of 1981 pertaining to the parking spaces. Further, it is requested to submit revised plans in accordance with the Zoning Regulations of 1981 along with the N. D. C. from the Collector, Hyderabad and also certified copies of the lease deed. "

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners submitted along with their application dated 22-1-1990 a xerox copy of the said lease deed and of the letter of the 4th respondent stating that the records are amended to show that the petitioners are the present lessees of the said plot. As already stated above, the petitioners question the requirement by the 2nd respondent of submission of the consent of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad for the proposed renovation. The consent required to be submitted is said to be the one referred to in sub-clause (6) of Clause 1 of the lease deed, which is as follows:"1. And the lessees do hereby covenant with the Secretary in the Revenue Department :- (6) Not to make any alterations in the plan or elevation of the said dwelling house without such consent as aforesaid nor to use the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that a dwelling house without the consent of the Estate Officer. "

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. V. R. Mohan Rao, contends that the obtaining of the said consent is a matter between the petitioners and the Estate Officer as per the terms of the said lease and there is no provision in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 or in the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981 requiring the petitioners to submit the said consent for obtaining the sanction of the plans for building construction or modification or alterations and that the 2nd respondent had no authority to require submission of the same for consideration of their application dated 22-1-1990. Neither Section 428 nor section 436 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 makes any mention of production of title deeds or permissions or sanctions by other authorities. The plans and other documents, which may be required to be furnished to the Commissioner under Section 429 or Section 434 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document