Heard the learned counsel on record.

2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to receive and process the petitioners application for building permission for construction of building in Premises No.1-8-369 and 370, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad as it is not accompanied with No Objection Certificate and basing upon the entry in TSLR as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to receive and process the application for building permission without insisting No Objection Certificate and without reference to entry in TSLR and to pass such other suitable orders.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property bearing No.1-8-369 and 370, admeasuring 70.53 sq. metres situated at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad having inherited from her husband late K. Yadaiah. It is stated that originally one J. Venkata Rao purchased the said property through registered sale deed bearing document No.194 of 1945 from one Charlapali Brahmaiah and said Venkat Rao in his turn sold the same in favour of her mother-in-law by name K. Yellamma through a registered sale deed bearing document No.2315 of 1955 for valid consideration. Thereafter, the said property devolved upon her husband late K. Yadaiah as he was the only son of late Yellamma and her husband died on 17-1-1998. As such the petitioner became the owner of the subject property and her name was also mutated in the Municipal records as owner and she had been regularly paying the property tax to the respondent corporation. The sale deed bearing No.194 of 1945 and also the sale deed bearing No.2315 of 1955 and the death certificate of the husband of the petitioner also are filed along with the writ petition by way of material papers. It is further stated that the petitioner intends to construct a new house by demolishing the existing house which is aged more than 60 years and for that purpose she approached the respondent corporation in the first week of July, 2006 with an application seeking for permission for construction of ground plus first floor in the said property. But surprisingly, the second respondent who is the competent authority refused to receive the building applications up to three floors, refused to receive the same on the pretext that her building application was not accompanied with No Objection Certificate issued by the revenue authorities and by saying that in TSLR her property was recorded as Government land. It is also stated that there is no requirement of production of No Objection Certificate either in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act or the relevant building byelaws. .

4. As far as No Objection Certificate from revenue authorities is concerned, there cannot be any doubt or controversy that it is not necessary. The only question that may have to be decided is in relation to the entries in TSLR. As far as entries in TSLR are concerned, the learned Judge of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another1 at Para 20 observed as follows:

A bare reading of scheme of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 would make it clear that the survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the lands and fixation of boundaries. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detailed enquiries with regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the land. It is neither the object nor the scheme of the said Act. There is no presumption that every entry made in the TSLR shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved as in the case of entries made in the record of rights under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971. It is not a record of right. There is no such provision in the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

Reliance was also placed on the decision in Writ Appeal No.10961 of 2001, dated