Judgment :- 1. As common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, a common order is being passed. However, for sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.No.20347 of 2010. 2. The prayer in writ petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 3 to receive and process the application for planning permission submitted by the petitioner for proposed construction at Plot Nos.124 (part) to 129 (part) and Plot Nos.106(part) to 110 (part) respectively in approved Lay out No.LPDM 2/75 situate at Panneer Nagar Part II, of Mogappair Village, comprised in Survey No.271/1 and present Survey No.271/1A2 Patta No.1842 (part), Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvellore District, measuring a total extent of 6000 sq. ft., without insisting on the petitioners to produce the "No Objection Certificate" from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 3. The petitioner in order to raise construction over the property submitted application for planning permission. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent though under a statutory duty to refer application to the first respondent, but has failed to perform the statutory duty, on the ground that the petitioners should produce 'No Objection Certificate' from Tamil Nadu Housing Board, ie., the second respondent. 4. The case set up by the petitioners is that there is no provision under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, for getting No Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, for the planning permission. However, in violation of the statutory provision, the respondents 1 and 3 are insisting on production of No Objection Certificate. 5. It is the case of the petitioners, that this Court in Writ Appeal No.36111 of 2005 (Nalini vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and another) has held that the first respondent cannot insist on no objection certificate from the Housing Board. 6. The order passed by the Honourable Division Bench, in the writ appeal referred to above reads as follows: "In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the second respondent - Ramavaram Panchayat to entertain the application for planning permission without reference to the No-Objection Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the third respondent herein. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land and the second respondent -Ramavaram Panchayat has insisted for No Objection Certificate from the Housing Board on the ground that the land is under acquisition. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land and the second respondent -Ramavaram Panchayat has insisted for No Objection Certificate from the Housing Board on the ground that the land is under acquisition. In more than one case, this Court has held that such No Objection Certificate is not ncessary for the purpose of consideration of the application for the planning permit. The said proposition is laid down by this Court on the ground that whatever the development is made shall be allowed. No costs. The second respondent -Ramavaram Panchayat is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and pass orders without reference to the No Objection Certificate from the Housing Board. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that this Court, by an interim order dated 09.12.2005, has directed the second respondent-Ramavaram Panchayat to consider the application of the petitioner without reference to No Objection Certificate and even then, no orders have been passed. 3. In view of the above, the second respondent - Ramavaram Panchayat is directed to pass orders within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order by the petitioner and the time stipulated shall be strictly adhered to the second respondent. " 7. The stand of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, is that, no planning permission can be granted to the petitioners, as the land is under acquisition, and award for compensation has been passed. Therefore, land in question vests with the State Government free from all encumbrances. The petitioners in these writ petitions have no locus standi to seek planning permission. 8. This cannot be a ground to process the application, nor it is permissible for the respondents 1 and 3 to seek No Objection Certificate, from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 9. The respondents 1 and 3 are directed to process the application of the petitioners in accordance with law, and grant the permission if the petitioners fulfill the conditions laid down for grant of planning permission, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and direction is issued to the respondents 1 and 3 to accept the applications for planning permission, filed by the petitioners, and process these in accordance with law, and take a final decision thereon without insisting on 'No Objection Certificate' from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and direction is issued to the respondents 1 and 3 to accept the applications for planning permission, filed by the petitioners, and process these in accordance with law, and take a final decision thereon without insisting on 'No Objection Certificate' from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. No costs.