Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rafathullah Vs. Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Rafathullah vs Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jun 20, 2008
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/437749

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 12513 of 2008
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955; Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Rules

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rafathullah

Advocate Shafath Ahmed Khan, Adv.

Respondent

Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Advocate R. Ramachandra Reddy, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955; Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Rules
Reported In
2008(5)ALT604

Excerpt

- .....takes notice on behalf of the respondent-corporation.4. heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation.5. learned counsel for both the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this court in district collector, hyderabad v. n. krishna mohan : 2000(4)ald126 and b. murali v. commissioner, municipal corporation of hyderabad 2000 (6) alt 198, wherein it has been held that the 'no objection certificate/tslr' from the revenue authorities cannot be insisted upon for grant of building permission.6. in view of the proposition of law laid down in the above referred cases, the objection raised by the respondent-corporation for receiving building permission application cannot be sustained.7. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondent-corporation to receive the building permission application from the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the hyderabad municipal corporations act, 1955 and the rules framed thereunder. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by Rafathullah with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-respondent in insisting the petitioner to produce 'no objection certificate/ TSLR' from the District Collector, Hyderabad, for grant of permission to make construction, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner is owner and possessor of the house bearing H. No. 2-3-692/1/8/1/A, situated at Durga Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, in an extent of 300 sq. yards, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 07.02.2007. He submitted an application on 15.05.2008 to the respondent-Corporation seeking building permission along with plan. The concerned officials of the respondent-Corporation have refused to receive the application and directed him to furnish 'No Objection Certificate/TSLR' original from the District Collector, Hyderabad. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation takes notice on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.

4. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

5. Learned Counsel for both the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in District Collector, Hyderabad v. N. Krishna Mohan : 2000(4)ALD126 and B. Murali v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2000 (6) ALT 198, wherein it has been held that the 'No objection certificate/TSLR' from the revenue authorities cannot be insisted upon for grant of building permission.

6. In view of the proposition of law laid down in the above referred cases, the objection raised by the respondent-Corporation for receiving building permission application cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondent-Corporation to receive the building permission application from the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the rules framed thereunder. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial