The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the second respondent rejecting his application for permission to make a construction for industrial purpose in his property. His application has been rejected for the reason that such permission was not possible to be granted as per the Government Order that is applicable. It is contended that the property is described as a garden land in the title deeds of the petitioner. Therefore, the said Government Order has no application to the petitioner's property.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground on which Ext.P3 has been issued is unsustainable. The Government Order relied upon only WP(C).No.25929/2012.
2 applies to paddy fields. The property of the petitioner is described as a garden land in his title deed and the same is still remaining as dry or garden land. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P3.
3. Adv.P.Ramakrishnan appears for the respondents.
4. Having considered the rival contentions of the contesting parties, it has to be held that Ext.P3 is unsustainable. The petitioner's land is described as garden land even in his title deed. A perusal of Ext.P3 does not show that the authority has taken any steps to verify the present condition of the land. For the above reasons, Ext.P3 is set aside.
5. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after conducting an inspection of the petitioner's land in order to verify whether the land continues to be garden land as described in the WP(C).No.25929/2012.
3 title deed of the petitioner and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. Appropriate orders as indicated above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-