Remanded

K. Indumathi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Aug 2014WP(MD)/11151/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of shop construction plan by Town Panchayat, arguing prior hoarding permission sufficed. Court held approval not automatic but noted reasoning was incomplete, remitting for fresh consideration per Municipal Acts. Writ disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to re-submit application to second respondent for fresh consideration within six weeks in accordance with Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and Rules.

K. Indumathi, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Writ Petition (MD)No.11151 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

K.Indumathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Nagercoil,

¶12

Kanyakumari District.

¶13

2.The Executive Officer, Unnamalaikadai Town Panchayat,

¶14

Town Panchayat Office, Virikodu Village & Post, Marthandam,

¶15

Kanyakumari District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Memorandum No.35/2014, dated 17.06.2014 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to provide permission for construction of a shop in an extent of 88 square feet within the area of site of 0.279 cents in R.Sy.No.301/8 of Nalloor Village, Unnamalaikadai Town Panchayat, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District in accordance with law.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R – 1 : Mr.K.Guru

¶19

Additional Government Pleader For R – 2 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the second respondent by which the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ request for grant of planning permission was rejected by the impugned proceedings.

¶22

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner obtained permission from the District Collector to put a hoarding in his property, for which, the petitioner applied for Electricity service connection and to establish a meter box for electrification of the lighting apparent to be provided in hoarding. Parallely, the petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent on 19.05.2014 for approval of the plan showing the proposed construction of advertisement board and shop at Vaniyatharavilai, Pammam Marthandam Post in Re-survey No.301/8 of Nalloor Village, Unnamalaikadai Town Panchayat, Vilavancode Taluk.

¶25

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said property and the proposed construction is a shop, on the top of which there is an advertisement board and the plinth area of the proposed shop is 88 sq. ft and the vacant area is said to be about 78 square feet. The application has been rejected by the impugned proceedings stating that the same cannot be granted merely on the ground that permission has been granted by the District Collector for the purpose of establishing a hoarding.

¶26

It is true that merely because the District Collector has granted permission for establishment of a hoarding does not mean that the building plan approval sought for by the petitioner ought to be automatically granted. To that extent, the impugned order is valid. However, the second respondent has considered the application in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972 framed thereunder.

¶27

It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the grounds on which the plan can be refused is enumerated under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and such of those contingency alone would be relevant for the purpose of rejection.

¶28

In any event, the second respondent has not stated as to why the building plan permission should not be granted or refused by referring to the provisions of the Act and Rules. The application should have been considered on merits independently in accordance with law as per the scheme of the Act and Rules to show as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to seek for permission to construct a building, which is proposed to be constructed by the Petitioner. Hence, to that extent the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned order has to be reconsidered. Since partial reasoning given by the second respondent is justified, this Court is not inclined to fully set aside the impugned order, but the matter

¶29

¶30

is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to re-submit the application to the second respondent, who in turn shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and the rules framed thereafter, within a period of six weeks from the date of representation.

¶31

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(Crl)

¶34

/True Copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.

¶38

2.The Executive Officer, Unnamalaikadai Town Panchayat,

¶39

Town Panchayat Office, Virikodu Village & Post,

¶40

Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

¶41

+1cc to Mr. T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate Sr.No.43638/2014 +1cc to Spl.Government pleader Sr.No.43904 ps

¶42

AA/21.08.2014/3p-5c/

¶43

W.P(MD)No.11151 of 2014 05.08.2014

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K. Indumathi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Indumathi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Mathi, Vs the District Collector

S.Kumar Vs the District Manager

S. Perumal Ramesh, Vs the Tirunelveli City Municipal

M.P. Rathinasamy Nadar, Vs the District Collector

Sundaram, Vs the Superintendent Engineer

Syed Meera Vs the State of Tamilnadu