M BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. COMMISSIONER NAGERCOIL MUNICIPALITY NAGERCOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records dated 21-1-1995 in reference No. 13/92/F2 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner herein in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has stated that he is an advocate practising at Nagercoil and that he purchased by a Registered Sale deed, dated 18-3-1989, a property consisting of land measuring roughly 61/2 cent in Old Survey No. 1382/426, 427 together with the superstructure standing thereon bearing No. 10/2-6. It is also stated that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the said property by letting it out to the tenants. The petitioner has further stated that the title of the property purchased by the petitioner is traceable to a registered partition deed of the year 1947. He has further stated that the description of the property purchased by him tallies with the partition deed. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is a highly influential person and therefore, the petitioner apprehending that the second respondent may proceed with the construction work filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 409 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagercoil for an injunction from putting up any constructions in the petitioner's property. Along with the suit the petitioner also filed I.A. No. 441 of 1995 for an interim order of injunction and originally on an ex parte injunction order was granted by the Court which was vacated later on. It is further stated that the petitioner was not aware that the second respondent was having a site plan and a building permit in his favour issued by the first respondent. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the site plan and building permit issued by the first respondent on the ground that if a building is not constructed within the period specified in the building permit a fresh site plan have to be obtained again and only thereafter building permit can be issued by the authority concerned. It contended that there is infirmity in the impugned order which is as follows :-

(3.) It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally the site plan of lay-out plan and the building permit were sanctioned by the first respondent on 5-11-1992 and as the period lapsed, the site plan or layout plan and building permit also lapsed. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 204 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which says that if the construction or reconstruction of any building is not completed within the period specified, the permission shall lapse and a fresh application shall be made before the work is continued. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order which says that the permission granted in the office building permit is hereby renewed for a period of three years, from 29-10-1994 to 28-10-1997 and submitted that the first respondent has no power to renew the lapsed building permission. It is further submitted that Section 204 of the Act refers to a fresh application and not the renewal of the application and as such a renewal application is not maintainable. He further submitted that once the building permit lapsed by virtue of Section 204 of the Act, the entire procedure of approval of site plan or lay-out plan of site also should be gone into once again and the lay-out plan or the site should be approved once again and then only, a fresh building permit should be issued by the first respondent. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 197 of the Act says that before a building permission is granted or reconstructing of a building, other than a hut, the executive of the municipality shall approve the site together with site plan of the land which is otherwise known as site plan or layout plan. In this case, the municipality has already approved the site plan and thereafter the building permit was granted on 29-10- 1992 to the second respondent. Due to the reasons best known to the second respondent, the second respondent was not in position to put up the building within the time specified in the Building permit, dated 29-10-1992 and the original building permit lapsed and later on, the second respondent applied stating that the building plan should be renewed. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner that just because the second respondent in his application used the term, 'renewal of the building permit' and the first respondent has given the permission using the word, 'renewed' for a period of three years from 29-10-1994 to 28- 10-1997, there is infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.