respondent has complied with all the relevant rules and based on the said report, No Objection Certificate was issued. The Tahsildar in his report dated 1.2.2019, also recommended for grant of No Objection Certificate to the 4th respondent. Based on the said report, the District Collector has issued N.O.C. to the fourth respondent. Further, it is stated in the report that only on personal enmity, objection is made. Therefore, there is no iota of truth in the aforesaid allegation made against the fourth respondent. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the land in question was classified as dry land for more than 15 years ago and the same was verified with the copies of adangal extract. Therefore, the classification of the subject land was made as dry land prior to the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non agriculture purposes in Non-Planning Areas) Rules, 2017 came into force. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the fourth respondent influenced the official respondents to reclassify the land in question as dry land by violating the aforesaid Rules is incorrect and the same is liable to be rejected and there is no force in the contention of the petitioner to interfere with the ''No Objection Certificate'' issued by the second respondent. Further, a letter submitted by the members of Sarugani Panchayat stating that there was no objection for reclassifying the subject land and also, there was no resolution passed against the construction of petrol bunk.
