JUDGMENT : Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. According to the petition averments, under registered sale deed dated 27-6-2008 the petitioner purchased 20 guntas of land in old Sy. No. 11, New Sy. Nos. 30 and 31 of Siddedahalli Village. According to him, it was converted for residential purpose. To the North of the property purchased by the petitioner, the property of the 2nd respondent is situated. The petitioner with an intention to put up a residential house approached the Competent Authority. The request of the petitioner seeking permission to construct the building has been rejected, since the respondent 2 did not grant ‘No Objection Certificate’, as per Annexure-F. This order is questioned in this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the notification has been issued as per Annexure-G on 15th February, 2007 putting a restriction to construct any building in front of the 2nd respondent’s property within a radius of 100 meters on account of the existence of a chimney. The copy of the same is produced as Annexure-G dated 15th February, 2007, which has been gazetted on 25th February, 2007. According to him, the validity of the notification is only for a period of 18 months from the date of publication and thereafter the notification has not been extended as required under the law. In the circumstances, he requests this Court to allow the writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that on account of the non-co-operation by the Government, the notification as per Annexure-G has not been extended further and in the best interest of the Defence Department, the relief sought by the petitioner shall not be granted by this Court. 5. Considering the dispute arises in this petition, I am of the view that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 for the following reasons:- When the respondents 1 and 2 admits the validity of the notification as per Annexure-G is only for a period of 18 months and if the time is not extended later, the notification as per Annexure-G stands lapses. When there is no restriction after the expiry of 18 months for the petitioner to proceed with the construction, there is no necessity to obtain NOC from the 2nd respondent and he can proceed with the construction. When there is no restriction after the expiry of 18 months for the petitioner to proceed with the construction, there is no necessity to obtain NOC from the 2nd respondent and he can proceed with the construction. If really, the property of the petitioner is needed by the Defence Department, it is always open for the Defence Department to invoke the law either to acquire the same or by paying compensation to the petitioner restricting from constructing any building on his property. Without recourse to the law, the 2nd respondent cannot contend that the petitioner shall not be permitted to proceed with the construction. 6. Since the notification as per Annexure-G lapses on account of efflux of time, Annexure-F issued by the 2nd respondent is non est in the eye of law. Therefore there is no impediment for the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority to grant licence and plan for construction of the building and proceed with the same in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.