M JOSEPH RATHINASAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER MADURAI CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he is the managing Director of M/s.Germanus Properties (P) Ltd. As per the decision of the board of directors, the petitioner had purchased 35 cents of vacant land, in Survey No.4/2C2, in Ponmeni Village, Madurai District, by a registered sale deed, on 6.2.2008, from Muthu Janaki and Muthu Seetha. When the land was with the erstwhile owners, Muthu Janaki and Muthu Seetha, it was acquired for the said purpose of New Ellis Nagar Housing Board Scheme. However, since the said land had not been used for the purpose for which it had been acquired, its erstwhile owners had filed two writ petitions before this Court, in W.P.Nos.6421 of 2007 and 6422 of 2007, for reconveyance of the land, to them. By an order, dated 2.8.2007, this Court had directed the Housing Board to re-convey the land in favour of the writ petitioners, on their payment of the developmental charges. Pursuant to the said order, the Housing Board had executed a Deed of Reconveyance, on 23.1.2008. Accordingly, the petitioners in the writ petitions had become the lawful owners of the land in question.

(3.) ALONG with the application, the petitioner had also furnished the necessary documentary proof to show that there was no arrears of property tax or vacant site tax payable to the respondent Corporation. Thus, the entire statutory charges payable to the respondent Corporation had been duly paid on the date of the submission of the application. The petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs.16,100/- to the Member Secretary of the Local Planning Authority and a sum of Rs.52,950/-, towards the Labour Welfare Board Fund. As such, the petitioner had fulfilled all the requirements necessary for the grant of planning permission, as well as the building permission, from the first respondent Corporation. Even after the fulfillment of all the requirements, the first respondent had kept the application pending for several weeks, without the necessary approval being granted, as prayed for by the petitioner.