M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the owner of a large plot of land situate on Magadi Road within the metropolitan area of Bangalore. He is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the respondent Bangalore City Corporation to grant him permission to construct a compound enclosing the vacant space which he owns. He has made the request enclosing the plan for the construction of the compound. The respondent - Corporation has not taken any action. Therefore the present writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the corporation to grant him the permission. ( 2 ) THIS Court on 1-2-1989 directed the sranding counsel to the Corporation sri. B. C. Castelino to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. Objections were directed to be filed thereafter and objections have since been filed. in the statement of objections the respondent corporation admits that an application to build the compound has been made, but it contends that the dispute between the petitioner and the corporation relates to the vacant land adjoining the petitioner's building and as there is a suit pending in Original Suit no. 1001/85 on the file of the City Civil judge, Bangalore, his request for sanction of the plan was rejected on 28-8-1986 and the petitioner nevertheless renewed his application to construct the compound and that was against rejected on 7-1-1989 for the same reason. ( 3 ) THE statement of objections does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the plot of land in question. It also admits that the said vacant land adjoining the building is the subject matter of civil dispute. The question is whether this Court may issue a mandamus in the facts snd circumstances of the case made out by the petitioner. ( 4 ) NO doubt all buildings must if they are to be erected within the limits of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore be so erected only if they have obtained the written permission of the corporation in accordance with the provisions made in that behalf in Section 299 of the Karnataka municipal Corporations Act, 1976, It is as follows : "299. Application to construct or re-construct building.- (1) if any person intends to construct or reconstruct a building, he shall send to the Commissioner an application in writing for permission to execute the work together with a site plan of the land, ground-plan, elevations and sections of the building, a specification of the work and such other documents as may be prescribed. Explanation.--'building in this sub- section shall include a wall or fence of whatever height bounding or abutting on any public street. (2) Omitted as not necessary. " from the above, it is clear that permission is required only if a building is erected and the word 'building' itself is not defined. Therefore, it must be interpreted by the Courts by giving the ordinary meaning found in the dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fifth edition defines 'building as- 'building, in senses; esp. : house, edifice building-lease, permitting lessee to build on the land building- society, of contributors to fund for loan to members when needing house. "therefore road with the explanation the expression 'building' used in Section 299 means construction of a house or something similar to a house and not a compound, which is defined in the same dictionary referred to supra at page 248, as-"compound, n. (In India, China, etc.) enclosure in which house or factory stands. "thus, though in this country in which the legislation is operative, building excludes a compound, the learned counsel for the corporation drew attention to the explanation which makes a wall to be included within the meaning of a building or fence of whatever height bounding or abutting on any public street. Therefore, in the instant case it was contended that the permission was required because it abutted the public road namely Magadt Road. In that view of the matter, the Court directed the petitioner to produce 3 sketch of the entire land and where he proposes to build the compound for perusal of the court, which he has since done. ( 5 ) ON a perusal of the sketch, the accuracy of which is not disputed by the respondent corporation, no part of the proposed compound abuts any road including the Magadi road, where a part of. it ends, but it is not abutting the road in, the sence of bordering the road or running' along the road. ( 5 ) ON a perusal of the sketch, the accuracy of which is not disputed by the respondent corporation, no part of the proposed compound abuts any road including the Magadi road, where a part of. it ends, but it is not abutting the road in, the sence of bordering the road or running' along the road. In that view of the matter, a compound having regard to its meaning in its special context in English language must be construed to exclude construction of a wall which is intended to act as a fence around a house or a factory or even vacant space which it encloses. Therefore, the proposed compound not being a building, clearly does not require a licence or previous permission in writing in terms of Section 299. If that is the correct position in law, the question of the corporation granting or not granting permission for whatever reason does not arise. The petitioner is free to build a compound which is not a building even without permission, if he choses to do so. If any body obstructs him to do so, he may in the pending suit obtain such injunction as may be necessary as the land is said to be disputed and it is not a matter for this court to issue a mandamus having regard to the meaning of the word 'building' in section 299, which is not what the petitioner has sought to build. Subject to the above obsewations, this petition is disposed of. --- *** --- .