The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 proceedings of the respondent by which, she has been directed to submit an application for regularisation of her construction, as a condition for numbering a construction that has been effected by her. The petitioner has effected a construction for which, according to the respondent, the required open space has not been maintained behind the building. The case of the petitioner is that, since the adjacent property owner has consented to such a construction, the open space now maintained is sufficient and is in compliance with the rules.
2. A perusal of Ext.P9 shows that, what the petitioner has been directed is only to submit an application for regularisation of the construction. It is for the petitioner to submit such an application, if necessary, supported by the document by which she has been granted consent by the neighbouring property owner. If such an application is submitted, the respondent shall consider the same and shall pass appropriate orders thereon.
This writ petition is therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an application for regularisation of her construction. If such an application is submitted within a period of W.P.(C) No.28302 of 2014 2 ten days of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and shall 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.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV