( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners are questioning the validity and competence of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to insist upon the production of a no-objection certificate from the District Collector, Hyderabad, as a precondition for sanctioning the layout applied for by the petitioners. The individual facts of these several Writ Petitions are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question arising herein, and it would be sufficient if we set out the facts in the first Writ Petition, viz. , W. P. No. 4920/1984. A. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition says that, he is the owner of half portion of Plot No. 1, situated at Jubilee Hills, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; that, he had purchased the same under a registered sale deed dt. 10-10-1970 from one T. V. Ramachandraiah who, in turn, is said to have purchased the same, along with some other land, from one Shamim Begum in 1967. The petitioner applied to the Municipal corporation for sanction of layout in respect of the said plot, along with a plan. The Municipal Corporation, by its proceedings dt. 17-11-1981, directed the petitioner to demarcate the roads, plots and boundaries. The petitioner also paid the requisite charges to the corporation. He says that, in pursuance of the proceedings dt. 17-11-1981 which were communicated to him, he demarcated the site as per the corrected layout and proposed to pay the betterment charges at an ad hoc rate of Rs. 26/- per sq. yard. The Corporation then addressed a letter dt. 21-12-1981 to the petitioner, directing him to remit an amount of Rs. 92,618/- towards betterment charges and obtain permit. Accordingly, the petitioner says, he deposited an amount of Rs. 92,618/-, and also gave an undertaking for payment of difference of betterment charges. In spite of this, the petitioner complains, the Corporation did not accord the sanction, and has been insisting upon the petitioner obtaining a no-objection certificate from the District Collector, Hyderabad with respect to his title. The petitioner s contention is that, in law, the Corporation has no power to call upon him the produce such a certificate. The refusal to sanction the layout applied for, on the said ground, is said to be incompetent and arbitrary. A direction is, therefore, sought against the Corporation restraining it from insisting upon the production of such a certificate. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that the letter of the Corporation calling upon the petitioner to deposit the betterment charges, does not confer upon him a right to sanction of layout and that, the said payment is one of the requirements to be satisfied before the sanction of layout is considered. It is, however, admitted that the sanction has not been accorded on account of the petitioner s failure to produce a no-objection certificate. It is asserted that the Corporation is perfectly competent, and within its power to insist upon the production of such a certificate. Various provisions of law are relied upon in this behalf, to which we shall make a reference presently. The deponent to the counter-affidavit has stated the circumstances, and the reasons for which such insistence is being made. It is stated that, in pursuance of the Collector s letter dt. 5-3-1982, the Municipal Corporation issued a Circular dt. 27-3-1982 directing the concerned officers not to sanction layout until the applicant produces a clearance certificate from the Collector, Hyderabad District, it the layout applied for happens to be in Banjara Hills area (Shaikpet village ). It is submitted that, unless the petitioner produces a no-objection certificate from the Collector of Hyderabad, he is not entitled to the sanction of layout, in law. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation has placed before us the letter of the District Collector, Hyderabad, and the Circular issued by the Corporation, to which a reference would be appr