The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P7 proceedings of the third respondent by which an application for numbering a building constructed by her has not been considered. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 building permit to construct a residential house. Ext.P3 is a copy of the approved plan. As per Ext.P5, she was also granted permission to transport the required sand for construction of her building from the state of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly she has completed the construction of her building. Thereafter, she submitted Ext.P6 application for numbering her building. Ext.P6(a) is the acknowledgement for having received the same. However, by Ext.P7 she has been informed that since her property has been described as paddy field in the Revenue Records her application for numbering could be considered only after receiving the approval of the paddy field committee. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P8 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer to the effect that the petitioner's property was lying fallow for the past 19 years. As per Exts.P9 and P9(a) it has been certified that the petitioner has no other property of her own. Therefore, it is contended that, the present stand adopted by the third respondent is unjustified and unsustainable.
3. Heard. It is an admitted fact that, by Ext.P2 building permit the petitioner was permitted to construct a residential house. Ext.P3 is the approved plan. She was also permitted to transport sand from Andhra Pradesh for the construction. It has to be presumed that, Ext.P2 building permit would not have been issued, had the property been actually a paddy field on the date of issue of Ext.P2. The petitioner has thereafter acted on the strength of Ext.P2, expended money and has put up a residential house therein. Exts.P9 and P9(a) show that she is a person who does not have any other property of her own. After having permitted the petitioner to put up a residential house, there is no justification for the present stand adopted by the third respondent that her building would be numbered only after getting the approval of the paddy field committee. The third respondent is the statutory authority empowered to number the building. It is for the said authority to inspect the building, to ascertain whether the construction is in accordance with the building permit and approved plan and to number the same. In the above view of the matter Ext.P7 is unsustainable.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P7 is set aside. The third respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 application of the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, 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.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge