HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No.25080 of 2022

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in issuing letter No. 003517/GHMC/1784/ KBH2/2022-BP dated 15.04.2022 in refusing to grant building permission to the petitioner in respect of plot No.52 situated in Sy.No.102/3 of Hakeempet Village, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad District, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri Y. Sreenivasa Murthy, learned senior counsel representing Sri P. Venkaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application on 31.03.2022 for construction of a building in the subject premises and the same was rejected by the respondent Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 15.04.2022 wherein it is stated that site under reference falls in disputed site and the GHMC has not granted any building permission in survey No.102/ 3 and therefore, the applicant is requested to get the status of the land from the competent authority and also upload the link documents to take further action.

4. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the law laid down by this court in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another wherein it is observed that while granting permission, the respondents cannot insist for NOC. It is submitted that in the rejection letter, the respondent Corporation has just stated that it is a disputed property.

5. Learned senior counsel further submits that even as per the list maintained by the Stamps and Registration Department, this land does not fall under the prohibited properties list. It is submitted that the rejection order passed is contrary to the law laid down by this court and he submits that basing on the said judgement of this court in Hyderabad Potteries case (stated supra), several writ petitions were allowed and in spite of the same, repeatedly the respondents

2001(3) ALD 600 are insisting for NOC.

6. When the matter came up for hearing on 10.06.2022, at the request of learned standing counsel for GHMC for obtaining instructions, the matter is listed today. Today, learned counsel representing on behalf learned standing counsel seeks time.

7. This court in several cases has passed orders basing on the judgement in Hyderabad Potteries case (stated supra) and also it was specifically directed that in the light of the judgement and orders passed in Hyderabad Potteries case (stated supra), the respondents cannot insist for NOC and very strangely, in this case, the respondents have not even mentioned from which authority, the petitioner has to get NOC, except saying that the competent authority.

8. In the light of the law laid down in Hyderabad Potteries case (stated supra), this writ petition is allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to process the building permission application dated 31.03.2022 of the petitioner without insisting for the NOC in accordance with law, within a period of four (4 ) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_______________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

15th June, 2022 gvl