Disposed

Reeta v. the Block Development Officer

Madras HC4 Jan 2022WP(MD)/10011/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Village President to grant building plan approval. The High Court interpolated a direction for the petitioner to clarify the construction's nature and mandated the respondent to decide within 12 weeks after receiving such details.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to clarify construction nature, followed by order to respondent to decide within 12 weeks.

Reeta Vs the Block Development Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10011 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.01.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.10011 of 2021

Reeta

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Block Development Officer, Aruppukottai Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.

¶9

2.The President, Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Union, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application, dated 08.04.2020 along with her communication, dated 29.10.2020 and grant building plan approval for the building proposed to be constructed by the petitioner in S.No.55/3B3 in Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Arunkumar For R1 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.B.Saravanan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction against the second respondent/President, Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Union, Virudhunagar District, to consider the petitioner's application, dated 08.04.2020 and to grant building plan approval for the proposed building by the petitioner in S.No.55/3B3 in Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

2.Heard Mr.S.M.Arunkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.10011 of 2021

¶18

3.In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid property by way of a sale deed, dated 11.03.2019. There was also a portion of the property retained by the vendor for common usage. The petitioner wanted to construct a building in the aforesaid land. She had forwarded an application to the Town Planning Office, Virudhunagar. There were several communications between the petitioner and the respondents.

¶19

4.My attention is drawn to a communication dated 09.10.2021 issued by the second respondent to the petitioner herein, wherein, they have stated that they entertained a doubt whether DTCP approval is required.

¶20

5.It is stated by Mr.B.Sarvanan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent that if the entire land is to be sub divided into plots and marketed out, then DTCP approval would be required. However, if a portion of the land is constructed, then regularisation of the said plan alone is required.

¶21

6.Let the petitioner approach the second respondent with proper application as to the nature of construction which they intended to construct and whether the entire land is sub divided into plots and marketed out or whether they are to construct a house simpliciter. On receipt of such representation or application given by the petitioner, a direction is given to the second respondent to consider the same and pass orders by following due process within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶22

7.With the said observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

cmr

¶27

¶28

1.The Block Development Officer, Aruppukottai Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.10011 of 2021

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.10011 of 2021 04.01.2022

¶33

2.The President, Kanjanayakkanpatti Village, Aruppukottai Union, Virudhunagar District.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.S.VANITHA, Advocate ( SR-709[F] dated 07/01/2022 )

¶35

NSN(CO) SB(19.01.2022) 3P 4C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Reeta v. the Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta v. the Block Development Officer

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

M/S. Mugavai Indane Gas Agency Vs the General Manager(Lpg-S)

M. Saiyedha Begum Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arunachalam Vs the District Collector

Sankiliammal Vs the District Collector

Sirajudeen Ali.a Vs the Sub-Registrar

Ramesh K Vs the District Collector