The question as to whether it is competent for the Municipal Corporation to insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from revenue authority is no longer res integra. In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad[1], this Court dealt with that very question and held that a local authority cannot insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authority.


IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

W.P. No.5843 of 2012

Between:

Gumma Jagannadha Rao
                                                                   …       Petitioner
And

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
Rep.by its Chief Commissioner,
Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another.
                                                                   …       Respondents







































THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

W.P. No.5843 of 2012

ORDER:                                                

          The petitioner intended to make construction of a residential house on house bearing H.No.12-10-664/A, on Plot No.14/A, in Survey No.167/1, situated at IndiraNagar Colony, ZamisthanpurSitafalmandiSecunderabad.  For that purpose, the petitioner approached the respondents with an application seeking building permission for construction in the said property.  The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not receiving the application, on the ground that his application was not accompanied with TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authority.  Therefore, he seeks appropriate directions in this regard.

          The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of the order dated 07.02.2012 passed in W.P. No.3010 of 2012 by this Court and submitted that this matter is squarely covered with the said order.  Therefore, he requested to pass similar order for which, the learned standing counsel does not dispute the same.

          Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

          The question as to whether it is competent for the Municipal Corporation to insist on production of TSLR Certificate and
“No Objection Certificate” from revenue authority is no longer
res integra.  In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad[1]this Court dealt with that very question and held that a local authority cannot insist on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authority.

          Since the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the said order, following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of, in terms of the said order directing the respondents to receive and process the application of the petitioner for building permission, in accordance with the provisions of the HyderabadMunicipal Corporation Act, 1955  and the Building Rules and Regulations made thereunder, without insisting on production of TSLR Certificate and “No Objection Certificate” from the revenue authority. 

With the above direction, this writ petitioner is disposed of. 
There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 02.03.2012
LSK










[1] 2001(3) ALT 200

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515