Heard both the learned counsel.

2. The matter is coming up for admission. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners states that in the light of the orders made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14837 of 2006, dated 20-7 -2006, and also in the light of the directions issued therein, this Writ Petition may also be disposed of.

4. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents also would submit that in the light of the observations made and directions issued in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Writ Petition No. 14837 of 2006 the present Writ Petition can be disposed of.

5. The Writ Petition is tiled praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to receive and process the application of the petitioners for building permission for construction of building in premises No. 3-5-265, Vittal Wadi, Narayanaguda, 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 on No Objection Certificate and without reference to entry in TSLR Certificate and pass such other suitable orders.

6. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the first petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property 150.50 square yards along with old house therein in premises No.3-5-265 (Mega City No.504) situated at Vittalwadi. Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through registered sale deed dated 8-9-1997 bearing document No. 1739 of 1997 from its lawful owners Smt. Shobana Hardikar and others. It is also stated that the 2nd petitioner purchased 87.50 square yards house site along with house therein in premises No. 3-5-265 situated at Vittalwadi. Narayanaguda, through a registered sale deed dated 8-9-1997 bearing document No.1741 of 1997 from Shobha Hardikar and others. It is stated that the properties purchased by the first petitioner and the 2nd petitioner are adjacent to each other forming into a single plot admeasuring 238 square yards. It is further stated that the vend-9rsof the petitioners in herited the house property from Srikanth Hardikar who got the same through a partition decree dated 31-12-1985 in O.S. No.416 of 1984 by the II Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is stated that originally the said property was purchased by one Genesh Vaman Hardikar, who is the father of the parties to the suit in 0.S.No.416 of 1984 through a registered sale deed dated 30th Farvadi, 1341 Fasli, bearing document No.105 registered in Volume at pages 135 and 136 of Sub-Registrar, Charminar. It is also stated that the name of predecessor-in-interest was also recorded in the municipal records way back from 1-4-1965 and the names of the petitioners were also mutated in municipal records. It is further stated that the petitioners intend to construct a new house by demolishing the existing house, which is aged more than 100 years, and for that purpose the petitioners approached the respondent-Corporation in the 1st week of August, 2006 with an application seeking building permission in the said property, but surprisingly the 2nd respondent who is competent, authority to receive the building application upto three floors, refused to receive the same on the pretext that the building application was not accompanied with No Objection Certificate issued by the revenue authorities and by saying that in TSLR, the petitioners property was recorded as Government land and their request to receive and process the application went in vain. It is also stated that three is no requirement of production of No Objection Certificate either in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or in the relevant building bye-laws, and this Court in catena of Judgments repeatedly