VEL R RANGARAJAN, SAGUNTHALA RANGARAJAN EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the land measuring 1.59 acres (0.64 hectares) comprised in Survey No. 322, Morai Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvellore District, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner is running a School, the proceedings in respect of the assignment of the land in favour of the Petitioner is stated to be pending before the first Respondent and in fact this Court in W.P. No. 3667 of 2004 filed by the Petitioner in the order dated 23.02.2004, had already given a direction to the Respondents therein to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 19.10.2000, and the same is still pending. In the mean time, since the Petitioner is running the School in the said area, the 4th Respondent hitherto upon granting building permission, based on which the building was constructed and the school is being run, however, for the present academic year, when an application for renewal is made for extension of building license, the 4th Respondent has rejected the said request by an order dated 03.08.210.

(2.) It is as against the order of rejection of building license extension for this year, the Petitioner has filed an appeal before the third Respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, on 10.08.2010, the case of the Petitioner is that the building is deemed to be a public building as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, particularly, Section 2(8), which includes the public building "any school" also. The relevant section is as follows:

(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, under the above said Act, the authority to renew the license as per Section 8 is the Tahsildar, viz., the 4th Respondent, as against the order of the Tahsildar, an appeal filed to the third Respondent, who is the appellate authority as per Section 11 of the Act, therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, since the appeal has been filed to the third Respondent, the appeal can be directed to be disposed of within a stipulated time and according to him, since the 4th Respondent, licensing authority is hitherto has been extending the period of license and the Petitioner is in possession of the building and conducting the school, the right of the Petitioner to continue to be in possession should be considered.