The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 proceedings of the fourth respondent. As per Ext.P4, the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner has been rejected for the reason that, in view of circular dated 22.1.2011 issued by the Local Self Government Department permission to erect residential buildings alone could be granted in respect of reclaimed paddy fields. The implication is that the petitioner's property is also a reclaimed paddy filed. 2. Adv.Brijesh Mohan, who appears for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had purchased two properties by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds. In both properties buildings are already in existence and the petitioner is conducting industrial units in the said buildings.
3. The application submitted as per Exts.P6 and P7 were for permission to make extensions to the existing buildings. For the above reason, it is submitted that Ext.P8 is unsustainable.
2 W.P.(C).No.33065 of 2014
4. Adv.P.Ramakrishnan appears for the respondents.
5. It is not in dispute that, there are already existing buildings in the property from which the petitioner has been permitted to conduct industrial units. Even according to Ext.P8, the property is no longer a paddy filed. It has been held by this Court that the circular referred to by the respondents has no application to lands that had ceased to be paddy fields as on date of coming into force of Act 28 of 2008. The above aspects have not been taken into consideration by Ext.P8. Therefore Ext.P8 is set aside.
This writ petition is disposed of, directing the fourth respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and to pass fresh 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.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.