M. BABY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the order dtd. 20/8/2015 of the second respondent, in and by which, the second respondent refused to accord building planning approval in favour of the petitioner by citing the pendency of the case in A.S. No. 68 of 2015 on the file of Sub Court, Thoothukudi relating to the property covered in the planning permission application submitted by the petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the property bearing Survey No.53/4A measuring 11 cents in Velur Pudhukkudi Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District was owned by one Mr. Kathirvel Pandaram and Nainar @ Raja. The aforesaid owners have sold the property in question in favour of one Mr. G. Subbarayulu by a sale deed dtd. 1/8/2003. From the said G. Subbarayalu, the petitioner has purchased the property by means of a registered sale deed dtd. 25/8/2011. Upon purchase, the petitioner has mutated the revenue records and obtained patta No. 186 dtd. 6/2/2012 in her name and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. While so, one Saravanan and Sankaralingam, sons of petitioner's vendor's vendor namely Kathirvel Pandaram has filed a suit in O.S. No. 132 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam claiming partition of the 2/5th share in the property in question. In the said suit, the petitioner was arrayed as third defendant and she contested the suit. Except the petitioner, who is arrayed as third defendant, the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the suit were set exparte. Ultimately, by a judgment dtd. 16/12/2014, the trial court dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiffs in the suit have filed A.S. No. 68 of 2015 on 9/7/2015 and the said suit is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has submitted an application dtd. 27/7/2015 seeking building planning permission in her favour to enable her to put up a construction. The said application was rejected by the second respondent by citing the pendency of A.S. No. 68 of 2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the appellate Court did not grant any stay of operation of the decree passed by the trial court, while so, the second respondent ought not to have placed reliance on the pendency of the appeal to reject the application submitted by the petitioner seeking building plan approval. It is further submitted that the suit was filed only for partition of 2/5th share and not for declaration of title and therefore also, the second respondent is not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner.