Telangana High Court
Gugulothu Ramaswamy vs The Principal Secretary Revenue And 4 ... on 10 April, 2024
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ Writ Petition No.6502 of 2022
% 10.04.2024
# Between:
Gugulothu Ramaswamy
Petitioner
Vs.
The Principal Secretary (Revenue)
Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.G.V.Raman Murthy
^ Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader
for Assignments.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2021 (3) ALT 146 (DB) (TS)
NVSK, J
2 W.P.No.6502 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.6502 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of
respondents in keeping the land in Sy.No.111/1/91/1, Ac.4-20
gts., of Narsampet Village and Mandal under prohibitory list
under Section 22A of Registration Act as illegal and arbitrary
and consequently direct the respondents to entertain
registrations in respect of the above said land.
Brief facts of the case and submission of the petitioner:
2. The brief facts of the case are that originally one Akula
Babaiah worked as Hawaldar/X-Service man/Freedom fighter,
and also worked in II World War with Batch No.145297. After his
retirement and by following G.O.Ms.No.74, he was granted land
to an extent of Ac.9-13 gts., vide Laoni Patta in old Sy.No.111/88
and in new Sy.No.111/1/91/1 of Narsampet Village and Mandal,
Warangal District vide file bearing No.A3/8292/61. It is
submitted that a patta was given in Form-G under Rule 9(g) of
Laoni Rules, 1950 and after obtaining the patta, the same was
implemented in file bearing No.A3/8292/1961 for the year 1962-
63.
NVSK, J
3. It is submitted that Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal
District has lost the said patta. The Tahsildar in his letter dated
20.05.2019 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Narsampeta, Warangal clearly stated that Akula Babaiah was
given Laoni Patta in Form No.G following Rule 9(g) of Laoni
Rules, 1950. The petitioner submits that Laoni Rules are
applicable to the subject mentioned land and that vide
G.O.Ms.No.1045 Revenue (Assn.I) Department dated 15.12.2004,
the land assigned to political sufferers/freedom fighters can be
sold by them after a period of ten (10) years of the date of
allotment and that patta granted under the Laoni Rules, 1950,
there is no condition of non-alienability and the said patta does
not come within mischief of Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh
Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. It is further
submitted that the said A.Babiah sold the Laoni Patta containing
Ac.4-20 gts., to Rama Anasuya Devi vide registered sale deed
No.3845/1975, and that the subject sale deed is legally valid as
per Laoni Rules.
4. Thereafter, the name of Rama Anasuya Devi was
mutated in the Jamabandi proceedings and her name was also
NVSK, J
recorded in the Pahanies for the years 1976-77 to 1991-92.
Thereafter, the said Rama Anasuya Devi has filed an application
before the Tahsildar seeking conversion of agriculture land into
non-agricultural/residential purpose in respect of land to an
extent of Ac.4-20 gts., in Sy.No.111/1/91/1 of Narsampet
Village (herein referred to as 'subject land'). Subsequently, the
Revenue Divisional Officer converted agriculture land into non-
agriculture land after obtaining necessary information. However,
the District Collector, Warangal vide Letter No.E1/921/2019
sought for information from Tahsildar and RDO, Narsampet and
finally concluded that A.Babaiah was assigned the above said
land of Ac.9-13 gts., as such it cannot be sold. Accordingly, the
entire extent of land in Ac.9-13 gts., in Sy.No.111/1/91/1 was
kept under prohibitory property under Section 22A of the
Registration Act and also directed Commissioner and IG,
Registration Department not to entertain any registrations.
Further in Dharani portal also the said survey number is shown
as prohibitory property.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977 is not applicable as in the Laoni Patta, the
NVSK, J
condition of non-alienability is not mentioned. When there is no
such condition, the registered sale deed Doc.No.3845/1975
dated 18.11.1975 is legally valid. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner herein entered into Agreement of Sale
with the said Rama Anasuya Devi to purchase the subject land
and that the Authorities did not consider the same and illegally
kept the land under Section 22A of the Registration Act inspite of
representation made to them. Questioning the same the present
writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the petitioner:
6. Subsequently, the vendor of the petitioner vide sale deed
Doc.No.3845/1975 dated 18.11.1975 has purchased the
property from Akula Babaiah to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts., as
such said sale deed was made beyond 10 years and the patta
was issued in the name of Rama Anasuya Devi. Even as per
Sethwar record of rights, the name of Rama Anasuya Devi was
found as owner of land to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts., in
Sy.No.111/1/91/1. As per the material papers filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, a report dated 19.10.2019 was
submitted from Tahsildar, Narsampet to the RDO, Narsampet for
deletion of Sy.No.111/1/91/1 to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts., from
NVSK, J
prohibited list. A reference was made to the letter issued by the
RDO, Narsampet dated 21.10.2019 requesting to furnish the
Assignment Patta Certificate issued to Akula Babaiah under ex-
servicemen quota, in relation to the application submitted by
Smt.Rama Anasuya, who requested the District Collector to
delete the entry of their land in Sy.No.111/1/91/1 to an extent
of Ac.4-20 gts., from the list of prohibited properties notified
under Section 22A of the Registration Act, as the land was
purchased from an ex-servicemen through a registered
Doc.No.3845 of 1975 and also obtained the PPB with Khatha
No.200.
7. It is further submitted in the report that on verification
of the office records and enquiring with the applicant therein, the
original assignment patta certificate issued to Akula Babaiah
was not available hence could not be furnished and that the only
record available is pahani copy for the year 1962-63 in which the
name of Akula Babaiah was recorded through Jamabandhi file
No.A3/8292/61 for implementation of Laoni Patta and the same
was recorded in "Faisalpatti" for the year 1962-63 in which the
name of Akula Babaiah was recorded at two instances for Ac.8-
23 gts., and Ac.0-30 gts.
NVSK, J
8. It is also mentioned that originally Akula Babaiah
worked as Hawaldar/X-Service man/Freedom fighter, and also
worked in II World War with Batch No.145297. After his
retirement by following G.O.Ms.No.74, he was granted Ac.9-13
gts., vide Laoni Patta in old Sy.No.111/88 and in new
Sy.No.111/1/91/1 of Narsampet Village and Mandal, Warangal
District. It is also submitted that in order to establish whether
assignment made was under ex-servicemen quota or under
landless poor quota, the form of order of assignment issued to
the individual is not available, however, as per as per
G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958, maximum extent of land
that can be assigned to a landless poor is Ac.2.5-00 gts., of wet
land or Ac.5-00 gts., of dry land but the individual was assigned
with Ac.9-13 gts., of land and the individual being a discharged
officer, he could not be considered as a landless poor person. It
is also noted that the land got alienated by Akula Babaiah to
Rama Shanker and Rama Anasuya Devi vide registered sale deed
Nos.3804/1975 and 3845/1975. The said Akula Babaiah filed a
grievance before the then MRO, Narsampet on 20.09.1989
denying the said alienation and proceedings were taken up and a
report was also submitted by MRO to the Collector on
NVSK, J
20.03.1990. In the above said instances, the said Akula Babaiah
submits that he was assigned the said land in recognition of his
services in World War II.
9. A copy of the conversion proceedings bearing
Proceedings No.B/207/2019 dated 31.05.2019 has also been
filed along with the material papers issued by RDO, Narsampet.
In the said proceedings it is submitted that as per the Tahsildar,
Narsampet vide Lr.No.B/588/2019 dated 28.05.2019 vide
Challan No.650 dated 31.05.2019 a sum of Rs.67,500/- was
paid for conversion of the said land from agriculture to non-
agriculture purpose and also stated that previously the said land
in Sy.No.111/1/91/1 to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts., at Narsampet
Village was allotted to ex-servicemen who worked as Hawaldar
and then transferred to Rama Anasuya Devi wherein her name
was mutated in the revenue records and she is pattadar till date.
Accordingly, the conversion proceedings have been issued.
10. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn attention to the letter of the Collector, Warangal
addressed to the Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of
Land Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad vide
NVSK, J
Rc.No.E1/921/2019 dated 14.07.2020 and sought for
clarification for issuance of NOC to sell away the land assigned
under ex-servicemen quota. In the said letter, clarification was
sought with regard to the application submitted by Rama
Anasuya Devi stating that she has purchased land in the year
1975 to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts., situated at Narsampet Village
in Sy.No.111/1/91/1 from Akula Babaiah, who was ex-
servicemen and her name was recorded in the patta. It is further
submitted in the said letter that as per the report of the
Tahsildar, Narsampet, Sy.No.111 of Narsampet Village and
Mandal was recorded as Poramboke land under Section 22A of
the Registration Act and that since the land is in prohibitory list,
the applicant is seeking for No Objection Certificate in order to
sell the land to others. Further as per the instructions of the
Government vide G.O.Ms.No.307, Revenue (Assignment - I)
Department dated 06.06.2013 'NOCs shall not be issued to the
third party applicants i.e., who had purchased the land from the
original assignees or their legal heirs without obtaining "NOC"
from the District Collector earlier. It is further submitted that no
allotment certificate/patta certificate submitted or available in
the file except copy of 1962-63 pahani. As per the said pahani,
NVSK, J
Sy.No.111 with subdivision No.88 Ac.9-13 gts., was written in
the name of Sri Akula Babaiah and written as "1963 as Patta" in
the 12th column of pahani, except the same, there is no proof of
document under which category it is assigned.
Submissions of the respondents:
11. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent
No.5/Tahsildar, Narsampet Mandal, Warangal District. While
denying the allegations, it is submitted that one Akula Babaiah,
who worked as Hawaldar with batch No.145297 during the
World War II, was granted Laoni patta to an extent of Ac.9-13 gts
in Survey No.111/88 (old), 111/91/1 (new), Narsampet Village
Mandal and District and the said entries are continued up to the
year 1975. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not
produced either the original patta certificate or copy of the same
for confirmation of assignment granted in favour of the said
Akula Babaiah under Rule 9(g) of the Laoni Rules. With regard to
the assignment file No.A3/8292/1961 which was relied upon by
the petitioner, which was issued under Rule 9(g) of Laoni Rules,
was not traceable in the office of respondent No.5 and therefore,
denied the claim of the petitioner.
NVSK, J
12. The respondent while referring to the revised
assignment policy vide G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958,
which relates to the assignment of Government lands while
exercising powers under Section 172 of Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area Land Revenue 1317 fasli, in suppression of all
previous orders of assignments, the land assigned to landless
poor persons is heritable but not alienable. The petitioner, in
contravention to the Assignment policy, had purchased the
subject land, as such, the Government is entitled to resume the
same to the Government custody to make use for public
purpose. It is further submitted that with regard to the
conversion of subject land from agriculture to non-agriculture
purpose by obtaining the permission from the RDO, Narsampet
vide proceeding No.B/207/2019 dated 31.05.2019 basing on the
report of the Tahsildar, was done fraudulently by the vendor of
the petitioner by mutating her name in the Revenue records,
which is also in contravention of the revised assignment policy.
Therefore, respondent No.4 has rightly prohibited the said
property and listed under prohibitory properties list under
Section 22A of the Registration Act, and sought clarification as to
whether No Objection Certificate is granted or not and the same
NVSK, J
is pending with the Office of Chief Commissioner of Land
Administration for clarification. Subsequently, on 27.12.2023,
learned Government Pleader for Assignment sought for time to
file additional counter. Hence, final opportunity was given to file
additional counter, but no additional counter affidavit has been
filed thereafter.
Decisions relied on by the petitioner:
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contentions relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this
Court in BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Cooperative
House Building Society Ltd., v. State of Telangana and
others 1 wherein the Division Bench while examining the
provisions of Section 22A of the Registration Act with regard to
the lands assigned to ex-servicemen held that only those lands
which are assigned to landless poor, the prohibition contained in
Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1971 was attracted, the ex-servicemen were
permitted to sell away their assigned lands after a period of 10
years freely without even seeking permission of the Government
and the District Collector being the Head of the Department was
the Custodian of the revenue records and that the District
2021 (3) ALT 146 (DB) (TS)
NVSK, J
Collector cannot be permitted to suppress the said record by
stating that they are not available and if the record got
misplaced, the District Collector has to give reasons that what
steps he has taken to trace the said record or initiate appropriate
legal action on those officials who are responsible for non-
availability of record.
14. It is further held that if any such violation of condition
of assignment of land by the assignees, who had been assigned
land in 1972, why the State had allowed so many alienations by
way of registered transactions and also effected mutation in
revenue record of the names of the purchasers and that the
original assignees are eligible to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117
despite the existence of any condition in the deed of assignment
prohibiting alienations. Accordingly the Division Bench allowed
the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated
13.02.2017 issued by District Collector. The relevant paragraphs
of the order of the Division Bench are extracted hereunder:
32. Thus only for lands which are assigned to
landless poor which contain a condition of non-alienation,
the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned
Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1971, is attracted2 .
NVSK, J
34. This was modified in G.O.Ms.No.1117
dt.11.11.1993 and the Ex-Servicemen were permitted to
sell away their assigned lands after a period of 10 years
freely without even seeking permission of the
Government.
48. The District Collector, being the Head of the
Revenue Department of the District, is the custodian of
the revenue records including those relating assignment
of lands. The District Collector cannot be permitted to
suppress the said record by stating that they are not
available. If the record had got misplaced, what steps
have been taken by the District Collector to trace the said
record or initiate appropriate disciplinary action against
the officials responsible for non-availability of the
records, is also not spoken to by the District Collector.
55. It is clear that the District Collector, without
verification of any record, since such a record is not
available, is trying to mislead the Court and give an
impression that the predecessors-in-title of petitioner are
not Ex-Servicemen (who can alienate after 10 years
without Government permission), but ordinary landless
poor assignees (who cannot alienate).
58. Moreover, if the assignments themselves have
occurred in 1972 and the alienations took place from
1992 onwards, and the land changed hands more than
once by the time proceedings for resumption of land were
initiated in 2011 and thereafter, whether the original
assignees were served any notices by the State
authorities before passing such orders, is highly doubtful.
61. If there was really any violation of conditions of
assignment of lands by the assignees, who had been
NVSK, J
assigned land in 1972, why the State had allowed so
many alienations by way of registered transactions to
take place and also effected mutation in revenue record
of the names of the purchasers, is not explained. It is also
not explained what the officials of the State were doing
over the last 40 years if such violation of conditions of
assignment allegedly took place.
68. So, it is not possible for the respondents 1 to 6
to speculate/imagine under which G.O. the ex-servicemen
were actually assigned the lands. On what basis the
learned Government Pleader for Revenue is presuming
that the assignments to the ex-servicemen were made
under G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue dt.25.07.1958, is not
stated by him. In our opinion, such a contention cannot
be raised without any factual basis.
69. Even otherwise, if there is an assignment of
land to a person, who is an ex-servicemen, and he is a
landless poor person entitled for assignment, even if by
some error, the said assignment was made quoting
G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dt.25.07.1958 and not
mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 or
G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, we are of the opinion
that the assignees, who are admittedly ex-servicemen are
still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117
dt.11.11.1993 despite the existence of any condition in
the Deed of Assignment prohibiting alienation.
78. Consequently, the respondent nos.1 to 6 are
not entitled to put these lands in the Prohibitory Register
invoking sub-Section (1)(a) of Section 22A of the Act."
NVSK, J
15. Heard Mr.G.V.Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Assignments. Perused the material placed on record.
ANALYSIS:
16. It is pertinent to note that Revenue Divisional Officer,
Narsampet, Warangal vide Proc.No.B/207/2019 dated
31.05.2019 has issued conversion proceedings for conversion of
land in favour of Rama Anasuya Devi in Sy.No.111/1/91/1 to an
extent of Ac.4-20 gts., situated at Narsampet Village, Warangal
District. However, again on 21.10.2019 he has submitted a
report to the District Collector in which there is no mention
about the conversion proceedings issued by him on 31.05.2019.
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet while granting
conversion proceedings has not verified with regard to the
alienation of the land. As per the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of BHEL Employees (cited
supra) the lands allotted to the ex-servicemen can be sold after
10 years freely without even seeking permission from the
Government.
17. In the case on hand Akula Babaiah was granted Laoni
Patta in File No.A3/8292/1961 to an extent of Ac.9-13 gts., and
NVSK, J
out of the said extent Ac.4-20 gts., was sold to one Rama
Anasuya Devi whose name has been implemented in the revenue
records. The petitioner herein has entered into agreement of sale
with the said Rama Anasuya Devi on 17.01.2019 to purchase the
land in Sy.No.11/1/91 and 111/1/92 situated at Narsampet
Municipality, Madannapeta Road. It is pertinent to note that the
name of the original assignees was recorded in the Sethwar
record of rights and thereafter the names of vendors of the
petitioner was entered into the Sethwar record of rights. The
District Collector, Warangal has also addressed a letter to the
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration seeking for
clarification for issuance of No Objection Certificate which was
applied by the third parties after 44 years, which is still pending
with the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.
18. The petitioner herein has also made a representation to
Sub Registrar Office, Narsampet dated 28.12.2021 for deletion of
subject property from prohibitory property listed under Section
22A of the Registration Act which is still pending with the
authorities.
NVSK, J
19. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.28300 of 2007 and batch at paragraph 30, while
referring to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Revenue Department
wherein at paragraph 156, summarized the conclusions and
issued directions as follows:
(i) The authorities mentioned in the
guidelines, which are obliged to prepare lists of
properties covered by clauses (a) to (d), to be
sent to the registering authorities under the
provisions of Registration Act, shall clearly
indicate the relevant clause under which each
property is classified.
(ii) Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, the
concerned District Collectors shall also indicate the
statute under which a transaction and its
registration is prohibited. Further in respect of the
properties covered under clause (b), they shall clearly
indicate which of the Governments own the property.
(iii) Insofar as paragraphs (3) and (4) in the
Guidelines, covering properties under clause (c) and
(d) are concerned, the authorities contemplated
therein shall also forward to the registering
authorities, along with lists, the extracts of
registers/gazette if the property is covered by either
endowment or wakf, and declarations/orders made
NVSK, J
under the provisions of Ceiling Acts if the property is
covered under clause (d).
(iv) The authorities forwarding the lists of
properties/lands to the registering authority shall
also upload the same to the website of both the
Governments, namely igrs.ap.gov.in of the State of
Andhra Pradesh and registration.telangana.gov.in of
the State of Telangana. If there is any change in the
website, the State Governments shall indicate the
same to all concerned, may be by issuing a press
note or an advertisement in prominent daily news
papers.
(v) No notification, contemplated by sub-section
(2) of Section 22A, is necessary with respect to the
properties falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-
section (1) of Section 22-A.
(vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of
Section 22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of
the State Governments and shall be forwarded,
along with the list of properties, and a copy of the
relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned
registering authorities under the provisions of
Registration Act and shall also place the said
notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites
of both the State Governments. The Registering
authorities shall make available a copy of the
Notification/Gazette on an application made by an
aggrieved party.
NVSK, J
(vii) The registering authorities would be
justified in refusing registration of documents in
respect of the properties covered by clauses (a) to (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A provided the
authorities contemplated under the guidelines, as
aforementioned, have communicated the lists of
properties prohibited under these clauses.
(viii) The concerned authorities, which are
obliged to furnish the lists of properties covered by
clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A,
and the concerned Registering Officers shall follow
the guidelines scrupulously.
(ix) It is open to the parties to a document, if the
relevant property/land finds place in the list of
properties covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section
(1) of Section 22-A, to apply for its deletion from the
list or modification thereof, to the concerned
authorities as provided for in the guidelines. The
concerned authorities are obliged to consider the
request in proper perspective and pass appropriate
order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the
application and make its copy available to the
concerned party.
(x) The redressal mechanism under Section 22-
A(4) shall be before the Committees to be constituted
by respective State Governments as directed in
paragraph-35.1 above. The State Governments shall
NVSK, J
constitute such committees within eight weeks from
the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
(xi) Apart from the redressal mechanism, it is
also open to an aggrieved person to approach
appropriate forum including Civil Court for either
seeking appropriate declaration or deletion of his
property/land from the list of prohibited properties or
for any other appropriate relief.
(xii) The directions issued by learned single
Judges in six judgments (W.P.No.2775 of 2009,
dated 15.03.2011; W.P.Nos.20050 of 2011 and
batch, dated 08.09.2011; W.P.No.26566 of 2011,
dated 18.01.2013; W.P.No.30526 of 2012 and batch,
dated 31.12.2012; W.P.No.31409 of 2014, dated
29.01.2015 and W.P.No.24587 of 2014 and batch
01.06.2015) or any other judgments dealing with the
provisions of Section 22-A, if are inconsistent with
the observations made or directions issued in this
judgment, it is made clear that the observations
made and directions issued in this judgment shall
prevail and would be binding on the parties
including the registering authorities under the
Registration Act or Government officials or the
officials under the Endowments Act, Wakf Act and
Ceiling Acts.
(xiii) If the party concerned seeks extracts of
the list/register/gazette of properties covered by
clauses (a) to (e) of Section 22-A (1), received by the
NVSK, J
registering officer on the basis of which he refused
registration, it shall be furnished within 10 days
from the date of an application made by the
aggrieved party.
(xiv) Registering officer shall not act and refuse
registration of a document in respect of any property
furnished to him directly by any authority/officer
other than the officers/authorities mentioned in the
Guidelines.
(xv) Mere registration of a document shall not
confer title on the vendee/alienee, if the property is
otherwise covered by clauses (a) to (e), but did not
find place in the lists furnished by the concerned
authorities to the registering officers. In such cases,
the only remedy available to the authorities under
clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 22-A is
to approach appropriate forums for appropriate relief.
CONCLUSION:
20. As per the guidelines extracted above, the petitioner, in
terms of Clause IX of the guidelines has already made a
representation dated 28.11.2021 to the Sub-Regisrar, Narsampet
and also has marked a copy to other respondents for deletion of
his property from the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the
Registration Act, which is still pending for consideration. The
District Collector, Warangal has also addressed a letter to the
NVSK, J
Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,
Hyderabad on 14.07.2020 requesting for clarification regarding
no objection certificate be issued to the third parties or not, to
sell away the lands assigned under ex-servicemen quota for
taking further action in the matter. In view all the above judicial
pronouncements, the respondents are directed to dispose of the
representation dated 28.12.2021 of the petitioner and also give
clarification on the issuance of No Objection Certificate and
accordingly, pass orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also at
liberty to approach the Civil Court for availing appropriate
remedy as available under law.
21. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 10.04.2024
mrm
