The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 notice by which the 2nd respondent has informed that an application for building permit could not be considered for the reasons noted therein. According to the petitioner, the objection that has been noted as Serial No.4 is unsustainable for the reason that, the application for building permit could not be rejected on the said ground. Adv.Sri.S.Shanavas Khan appears for respondents 2 and 3. According to the counsel, the site itself is not identifiable on the basis of the plan produced by the petitioner. There are other defects also, on the basis of which Ext.P3 has been issued. The counsel for the petitioner submits that, the other defects would be rectified and a fresh plan would be submitted. The property would be properly identified to the satisfaction of the authorities. 2. Heard. It is settled law that, the objection that has been W.P.(C).No.25724 of 2014 2 raised as Serial No.4 cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Raju S.Jethmalani and
others v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2005) 11 SCC
222]. Admittedly, no land acquisition proceedings have been initiated in implementation of the regulation that is said to be in force. With respect to the other objections raised, the petitioner has offered to rectify them.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh plan, rectifying the defects pointed out as Serial Nos.2, 3 and 5 in Ext.P3. On submission of such a revised plan, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law, without reference to the objections noted as Serial No.4 and shall pass appropriate orders thereon. Orders as indicated above shall be issued, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of submission of the revised plan.
sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.