Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 108 (AP)

G. Mallaiah v. Govt. of A. P.

2009-02-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
Judgment : Common Order: These two writ petitions arise under identical circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner in W.P.No.14000 of 2007 is the owner of the land in Survey No.296/1 of Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad and the petitioner in W.P.No.14026 of 2007 owns house bearing No.5-4-284/2/A of Ranigunj, Secunderabad. Both of them intended to construct new buildings. Submission of ‘No Objection Certification’ issued by the District Collector is necessary, when an application seeking permission to construct a building is made to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Therefore, the petitioners made applications to the District Collector, Hyderabad, the second respondent in both the writ petitions. On verification of the records, it emerged that in the Town Survey Land Records (T.S.L.R.), it was endorsed that the land belongs to the Government. The matter was examined with reference to pre-survey records and it was noticed that the entries made vis-à-vis the properties of the petitioners are erroneous. However, the second respondent issued Memos, dated 22.06.2007 and 21.06.2007, to the petitioners expressing his inability to issue “No Objection Certificate’. The petitioners challenge the same. They contend that at no point of time, the Government had any claim or interest over their properties and even after noticing that there is a survey error in making the entries, the ‘No Objection Certificate’ was refused. The respondents filed counter-affidavits, virtually repeating the contents of the Memos impugned in the writ petitions. They state that the petitioners did not take any steps to get survey error corrected, either by filing a suit or by preferring an appeal and as long as the entries stand, ‘No Objection Certificate’ cannot be issued. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners applied for ‘No Objection Certificate’ to comply with the requirement stipulated by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. As a matter of fact, this Court held in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad 2001(3) ALD 600 that the Municipal Corporation or any legal authority cannot insist on submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the District Collector as a condition precedent for considering the application for grant of permission. Therefore, the very exercise undertaken by the petitioners was more as a precaution, than a requirement under law. In both the impugned Memos, the second respondent made a clear observation to the effect that there is a survey error. Therefore, the very exercise undertaken by the petitioners was more as a precaution, than a requirement under law. In both the impugned Memos, the second respondent made a clear observation to the effect that there is a survey error. For instance, in the Memo, dated 22.06.2007, the second respondent observed as under: “The TSLR entries recorded in the above case is found to be erroneous and the NOC Committee could not consider the NOC because this land is recorded as ‘road’ against T.S.No.25. The said case has been thoroughly examined and it is observed that the entry of TSLR in respect of above case may not be correct and it required to be corrected.” The observation in Memo, dated 21.06.2007, reads as under: “The TSLR entries recorded in the above case is found to be erroneous and the NOC Committee could not be able to consider the NOC because this land is recorded as GVM. The said case has been thoroughly examined and it is observed that the entry of TSLR in respect of above case may not be correct and it required to be corrected.” In fairness to the petitioners, the second respondent did consider the various alternatives, to correct the error at his level. However, after making reference to various circulars and provisions of law, he expressed his inability. Whatever be the limitations on the part of the second respondent in correcting the survey errors, he cannot refuse ‘No Objection Certificate’ as long as the record discloses that the Government has no subsisting claim or interest over the property. The rights of the Government are to be discerned from a more reliable material than, an erroneous survey. In Sogra Begum Vs. State of A.P. 2002 ALD Supp.1 539, a Division Bench of this Court, after making a reference to the judgment in W.P.No.25727 of 2000, took the view that the entries in T.S.L.R. cannot be treated as conclusive proof of title, or lack of it. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the second respondent is directed to examine the matter afresh, without reference to the survey record, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.