Judgment :- 1. The petitiouer owns a land in S. No. 99 in Kodaikkanal Village, Nitakkot-tai Taluk of an extent of about 2.20 acres. It is an agricultural land. He submitted a building plan to the respondent herein covering an extent of nearly 3 cents measuring 52 feet 6 inches by 25 feet 9 inches in that property, for sanction. This building was intended for the stay of the watchman, store the plucked fruits, grading them, etc. The respondent rejected the application on three grounds, vtz., (1) that it is in an area exclusively reserved for agricultural use; (2) under the revised master-plan, it is a prohibited area; and (3) that it is within a distance of 200 metres from the Gymkhana grounds, and therefore, it is violative of 8, 6. 4, of the master-plan. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in its proceedings B.A. No. 55/90/67 and quash the order therein dated 29-6-1990 and further direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner on the application made by him. 3. Notice of motion was ordered in this writ petition, pursuant to which the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has, on the strength of a counter-affidavit, submitted his arguments. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that “as per the consented Master Plan of Kodai-kkanal, the proposed site is lying in Agricultural Use Zone in which the construction of Farm House is permissible”. Therefore, it is obvious that the first ground given for rejection of the application is erroneous. It is not as if this sentence had been typed by mistake. But, on the contrary, after typing out the words ‘not permissible’, deliberately the word ‘not’ has been scored out, which would indicate that the respondents are firm in their contention that the land, though classified as ‘lying in agricultural use zone, the erection of a farm house is permissible. Such a thing is also in accordance with reason because a farmhouse is a necessary adjunct to an agricultural farm. 4. The second reason given in the order is that it is lying in the prohibited zone. No provisions of the Master Plan revised or original has been shown to substantiate the plea that it in a prohibited zone. 5. Such a thing is also in accordance with reason because a farmhouse is a necessary adjunct to an agricultural farm. 4. The second reason given in the order is that it is lying in the prohibited zone. No provisions of the Master Plan revised or original has been shown to substantiate the plea that it in a prohibited zone. 5. The only other ground that remains for consideration is the alleged violation of 8-6-4 of the revised Master Plan. The 8-6-4 of the Revised Master Plan reads as follows : “Building activity is prohibited to a depth of 200 metres adjoining the lake area and in the Gymkhana ground area.” The proper way to read the sentence isi that within 200 metres adjoining the lake area, building activities are prohibited and similarly, building activity is prohibited in the Gymkhana Ground area. Since admittedly the site, on which the petitioner proposes to construct a building, does not lie within the Gymkhana area and it is not the case of the respondents that it lies Within 200 metres adjoining the lake area, there is no violation of clause 8-6-4 of the revised master plan. 6. All the three grounds given by the respondent for rejecting the building plea submitted by the petitioner having been found to be erroneous, the impugned order is quashed and there will be a direction in this writ petition directing the respondent to sanction the building plan forthwith. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. 1. The judgment of the Division Bench, on appeal affirming this decision is reported next to this case at page 608 (1990-2-L.W. 608=1990 Writ L.R. 283)