Judgment : This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in insisting on No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar as a condition for sanctioning the plan in respect of plot No.141, RS.No.616/12 of Satyanarayanapuram Village, Pidimgoyya Gram Panchayat, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioner averred that he is in possession of 2162 sq. yards of land in R.S. No. 616/12 of the above mentioned village. According to him, R.S. No. 616 corresponds to Old Survey No. 327 comprising Acs.87.87 cents. Some of the land owners filed O.S. No. 130 of 1977 when the entire land was claimed by the Revenue department and the said suit was decreed by declaring that the Government was the owner of only Acs.29.03 cents and that the said judgment was confirmed in appeals by this Court and the Supreme Court. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 1994, some of the land owners have approached the Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh for approval of lay out and that the lay out was accordingly approved on 22.11.1995 vide L.P. No. 106/95 by the Director of Town and Country Planning. That in the year 2003, the petitioner’s brother and some others approached the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed in respect of the lands covered by Survey No. 616 and that the Sub-Registrar, Rajahmundry Rural refused to register the documents on the ground that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry has raised objection for such registration and that thereupon, the aggrieved parties have filed Writ Petition No. 20229 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 5.11.2007 declaring that there is no Government land in R.S. No. 616 and directing the Sub-Registrar to register the documents. The petitioner claimed that out of 2162 sq. yards, Plot Nos. 141,142,148,149,152,153,154 and 155 in Survey No. 616/12 are covered by a registered possessory agreement dated 31.7.2008, between himself and his brother and that when he made an application for permission for construction of a house in Plot No.141, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that without a No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Rural, approval will not be given. 141,142,148,149,152,153,154 and 155 in Survey No. 616/12 are covered by a registered possessory agreement dated 31.7.2008, between himself and his brother and that when he made an application for permission for construction of a house in Plot No.141, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that without a No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Rural, approval will not be given. This action is termed as illegal in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia admitted that this Court allowed Writ Petition No. 20229 of 2003 and following the same, the Joint Sub-Registrar registered the documents. It is further averred that when the petitioner’s brother has filed an application before respondent No.1 for construction of a residential house, he has filed No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Rural along with his application and therefore the respondent was insisting on the petitioner also to file such No Objection Certificate. At the hearing, Sri G. Elisha, learned counsel is unable to derive support from any provision of law under which the respondent can insist on production of No Objection Certificate by the revenue authorities. While dealing with a similar position, pertaining to Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector, Hyderabad 2001(3) ALD 600 , held as under: “Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner is accordingly directed to forthwith consider the application of the petitioner for grant of permission for construction of stilt for parking + 5 upper floors for Residential Apartments consisting of Blocks A to D at premises No.1-1-365/A, situated at Bakaram, Hyderabad, by duly taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner along with the application including the permission already granted by the Corporation to the petitioner for the construction of a multi-storeyed building in a portion of the very land and the Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal certifying the land in question to be a private land. The Commissioner shall not reject the application of the petitioner solely on the basis of an objection purported to have been raised by the Joint Collector. The objection, if any, raised by the Joint Collector may also be taken into consideration along with the other relevant material available on record. The Commissioner shall not reject the application of the petitioner for grant of permission solely on the basis of an entry stated to have been made in TSLR. In K. Pavan Raj vs. Municipal Corporaton of Hyderabad, ( 2008(1) ALD 792 ) this Court reiterated the legal position enunciated in Hyderabad Potteries. Though respondent No.1 functions under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder, the legal position crystalised in the above noted judgments would as well apply to the applications for building permissions entertained and disposed of by respondent No.1, in the absence of any provision of law under which respondent No.1 is empowered to insist on production of No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department. On the premises as above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to process the petitioner’s application for building permission and take appropriate decision thereon strictly in accordance with law, without insisting on production of No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No. 4910 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.