Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 940
2006 (6) ALT 198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
B. Murali - Petitioner.
v.
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad - Respondent.
W.P. No.16810 of 2006
Decided on 22-8-2006.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. P. Pandu Ranga Rao, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rama Rao Ghanta, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Land Laws – No Objection Certificate – Writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring insistence of the respondent to produce "No Objection Certificate" from the District Collector, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and to direct the respondent to deal with petitioners building application form filed with Circle NO.III for grant of construction of building on premises – Held, Court has no hesitation in stating that this approach to be deprecated and disapproved – Court is governed by the rule of law – Executive is bound to honour the binding judicial orders – Court is conscious of the realities and also working of the public administration. It may be that all authorities may not be of the same standard – Hence in the event of doubt better to consult the concerned as referred supra and take appropriate advice and make an order – Regarding the aspect that a particular judgment of High Court was brought to the notice of the authority and despite the same, deliberately and wilfully ignoring the same, and making an order, in the considered opinion of this court is nothing short of contempt of court – Court is not inclined to express any further opinion in this regard except making these observations, since this court is disposing of a writ petition and not a contempt proceeding – Writ Petition Allowed
Heard both the counsel
2. This Court on 11-8-2006 made the following order:
"Notice before admission. Sri Ganta Rama Rao takes notice and requests time to file counter affidavit. It is stated that on 5-6-2006 while resubmitting proposal with clarification of the legal position, 2000 (4) ALD 126 had been specifically referred to and it was also stated that no objection certificate from the collector is not required. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III Sri Bikshapathi on 17-5-2006 stated that.
"That you have not submitted the NOC 26 from Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, but whereas you have submitted Andhra Law Times Report. Hence, permission applied for is hereby refused duly requesting to submit the NOC from District Collector, Hyderabad District, so as to take further necessary action." Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that when the judgment of the Court is duly brought to the notice of the authority, the concerned authority is bound to obey the ratio laid down in such judgment and such orders cannot be made. Hence, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III, Sri Bikshapathi to be present before this Court on 22-08-2006. Post on 22-08-2006."
3. Sri Bikshapathi, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-III is present before this court and offers unconditional apology for the bona fide mistake committed by him being under the impression that the decision is not applicable to the present case. The same is hereby recorded.
4. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the insistence of the respondent to produce "No Objection Certificate" from the District Collector, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and to direct the respondent to deal with petitioners building application form dated 3-5-2006 filed with Circle NO.III for grant of construction of building on premises bearing MCH No.1-6-249/1/1 (old No.180) Gutta, Mega City No. 1730, admeasuring 340 square yards equivalent to 284.27 square metres (51.6" x 59.6) situated at Gutta Zamistanpur, Hyderabad, A.P. bounded by:
North : House of Sri R. Sattaiah & Late Sri R. Narsingh Rao
South : Part of House
East : 25 wide Road
West : 18 wide Road
Without insisting upon "No Objection Certificate" from District Collector, Hyderabad and pass such other suitable orders.
5. It is stated that the petitioner purchased the property bearing MCH No.1-6-249/1/1, (old No.180), Gutta Mega City No.1730, admeasuring 340 square yards equivalent to 284.27 square metres (51.6" X 59.6) at Gutta Zamistanpur, Hyderabad A.P. bounded by:
North : House of Sri R. Sattaiah & Late Sri R. Narsing Rao
South : Part of House
East : 25 wide Road
West : 18 wide Road
6. It is also stated that under the sale deed dated 20-3-2006 bearing No.1014/2006, registered with the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. It is further stated that originally the petition property belonged to one Syed Shabuddin s/o. late Syed Yaqoob who sold the same under a registered sale deed to R. Venkat Swamyon 7-6-1961. After the death of R.Venkat Swamy, his widow being his sole surviving heir sold the same to Smt. M. Sujata and five others by registered sale deed dated 12-9-1997. On 2-11-2001. Smt. Sujatha and five others sold the same to Smt. Nagam Bala Tripura Sundari. It is also stated that the petitioner purchased the property from Smt. Nagam Bala Tripura Sundi by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20-3-2006. It is further stated that the said Nagam Bala Tripura Sundri delivered the possession and the petitioner is in possession of the property. Thus, his predecessors-in-title since 1961 had been in continuous uninterrupted possession and enjoying the property situated at Gutta Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. The Xerox copies of relevant documents are also produced before this Court. It is also stated that the petitioner after purchasing the property, had duly applied to MCH for building permission vide building application form dated 3-5-2006 along with the
