Judgment :- Writ Petition Nos.4887 and 4888 of 1991 are filed by M/s.Onondaga Investments (P) Ltd., W.P.Nos.4889 and 4890 of 1991 are filed by M/s.Onondaga Hotels Resorts (P) Ltd., Kodaikanal. 2. W.P.Nos.4889 and 4890 of 1991 is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent dated 22.2.1991 refusing grant permission/licence to the petitioner for the construction of residential buildings lands belonging to the petitioner in S.No.108 Part Upper Lake Road, Kodaikanal as per application dated 11.2.1991 W.P.Nos.4889 and 4890 of 1991 are filed for the issue of a of mandamus to direct the respondent to grant licence/permission to the petitioner for construction of buildings on the petitioner’s lands situate in S.No.108 Part Upper Lake Kodaikanal as per the application dated 11.2.1991 filed under Secs.191 to 208 of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920. 3. The short facts are: On 11.1.1991, applications were made for build-inglicences enclosing necessary plans sanction under the District Municipalities Act V of 1920 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Act V of 1920). It is alleged in the affidavit that the respondent treated it as an application for permission for putting up buildings under Sec.48 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972) and 22.2.1991 passed the impugned orders refusing to grant licences on the ground that the intended to be used for new building is situated in an area classified as agricultural use and that the site intended to be used for putting up new building is within 200 metres the gymkhana club. The petitioner further alleges in the affidavit that the order refusing grant licence is arbitrary and illegal, and tantamount to a failure to exercise the statutory powers under Chapter X of Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920. It is also alleged in the affidavit the Planning Authorities for Kodaikanal area have applied the provisions of Chapter III of Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972, prepared a Master Plan for Kodaikanal local planning area submitted the plan to the Government. It is also alleged in the affidavit the Planning Authorities for Kodaikanal area have applied the provisions of Chapter III of Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972, prepared a Master Plan for Kodaikanal local planning area submitted the plan to the Government. It is further stated that the Government gave consent to the publication of a Notice under Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972 for preparation of the Master Plan in G.O.Ms.No.517, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 11.5.1988 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 31.8.1988. 28.10.1988, the petitioner filed objections to the said Master Plan prepared and published 31.2.1988. It is further stated that no approval has been published as provided in Sec.30 the Act and that it is not open to the respondent to rely on or invoke the draft master prepared and published under Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972. It is further that the impugned order of refusal relying on the proposals of the master plan 11.5.1988 in illegal and that it is not authorised by the Scheme of Chapter III of Tamil Act 35 of 1972. It is also stated that in the absence of a final master plan under Sec.30 the Act, the permission sought for by the petitioners for the putting up a new building site of the petitioners ought to be considered and that the petitioners’ ought to be considered and that the petitioners’ application for building licences will have to be considered under Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920 read with Tamil Nadu Hill Areas Special Building introduced on 31.1.1986. It is also alleged that on 30.10.1991 a notice to the public published in ‘The Hindu’ that the consented master plan of Kodaikanal was introduced 11.5.1988. It is also stated that the order of refusal passed by the respondent on 22.2.1991 is arbitrary, that the reasons given in the impugned order are based on the draft master dated 11.8.1988 and that they are not correct. It is also stated in the affidavit that the of the respondent in considering the objections of the petitioners to the draft master in gross violation of the rule of audi alteram partem and that the impugned order 22.2.1991 is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of justice. It is also stated in the affidavit that the of the respondent in considering the objections of the petitioners to the draft master in gross violation of the rule of audi alteram partem and that the impugned order 22.2.1991 is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the principles of justice. It is further alleged in the affidavit that in the absence of a final publication master plan in a manner laid down in Sec.30 of the Act, the respondent cannot proceed consider the question of grant or refusal purporting to rely on or invoke the draft master plan. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the intention of the respondent is to somehow reject the applications of the petitioners for licence, placing reliance on some imperfect inconclusive proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972 instead of considering petitioners ’ applications under Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920. With these allegations, petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions with the prayer as stated supra. 4. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that since the issue raised in the writ petitions purely based on a question of law, the writ petitions can be disposed of on the interpretation of the various provisions of District Municipalities Act, 1920 and Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 5. Mr.KX.Rajapa, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that grant refusal can be made only after a final plan is published under Sec.30 of the Town Country Planning Act, 1971 and that in this case after receiving the objections from petitioners a draft plan was published on 29.7.1988 and thereafter nothing has happened. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, power under Sec.48 of Act cannot be invoked till final notification is made under Sec.30 of the Act 1971. learned counsel also contends that the applications of the petitioners should be disposed only under the provisions of the District Municipalities Act V of 1920 and sub- Sec.49 of Act, 1971 is not applicable at the stage of draft plan. He further contends that said order is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity has been given to petitioners even though the petitioners gave their objections even before the master under Sec.30 of the Act. He further contends that said order is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity has been given to petitioners even though the petitioners gave their objections even before the master under Sec.30 of the Act. He further contends that when the applications have been dismissed by the impugned order based on the draft plan, this Court should strike down same as it has been passed without given an opportunity to the petitioners under the 1971. 6. Per contra, Mr.K.Govindarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the applications have been filed by the petitioners only after the draft scheme has been published under Sec.48 and 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and as such rejection of the applications cannot be said to be bad as it has been done on the basis draft plan. 7. I have considered the arguments of Mr.K.C.Rajappa the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and of Mr.K.Govindarajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. appreciate the contentions of both parties, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of District Municipalities Act V of 1920 and Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Chapter III Act, provides for the planning areas, planning authorities and plan. Sec.17 of the provides for Master Plan and Sec.2-C provides for contents of detailed development plan. Sec.24 enables the Government to give consent publication of notice of preparation of plan. Sec.26 provides that the appropriate planning authority shall publish the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and in leading newspapers of the region of the preparation of master plan or the new town development plan as the case may be and the place or places where copies of the same may be inspected inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person in respect of the said within such period as may be specified in the notice. An opportunity of being heard had given by the appropriate planning authority to any person who makes representations. An opportunity of being heard had given by the appropriate planning authority to any person who makes representations. Under Sec.30 of the Act, 1971, the approval of the Government to a regional plan, a plan or a new town development plan shall be published by the Government Government Gazette and in leading daily newspapers of the region and the said notification shall be conclusive evidence that the master plan or the new town development plan been duly made and approved and the said plan shall come into operation from the date publication of such notification in the Gazette. Chapter VI of the Act 1971 contains control of development and use of land. Under Sec.48 of (he Act, 1971 certain restrictions are placed on buildings and lands in the area of the planning authority. Sec.48 of the 1971 is in the following terms’ "....Restrictions on buildings and lands in the area of the planning authority: On or after date of publication of the resolution under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.19 or of the notice in the Nadu Government Gazette under Sec.26, no person, other than any State Government Central Government or any local authority, shall, erect any building or make or extend excavation or carry out any mining or other operation, in, on, over or under any land make any material change in the use or land or construct, form or lay out any work with the written permission of the appropriate planning authority and in accordance with conditions, if any specified therein....." Sec.49 of the Act, 1971 reads as follows: "....Application for permission: (1) Except as otherwise provided by rules made in behalf, any person not being any State Government or the Central Government or any authority intending to carry out any development on any land or building on or after the of the publication of the resolution under sub-sec.(2) of Sec.19 or the of notice in the Nadu Government Gazette under Sec.25 shall make an application in writing to appropriate planning authority for permission in such form and containing such particulars and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed. (2) the appropriate planning authority, shall, in deciding whether the grant or refuse permission, have regard to the following matters, namely: (a) the purpose for which permission is required: (b) the suitability of the place for such purpose (c) the future opment and maintenance of the planning area. (2) the appropriate planning authority, shall, in deciding whether the grant or refuse permission, have regard to the following matters, namely: (a) the purpose for which permission is required: (b) the suitability of the place for such purpose (c) the future opment and maintenance of the planning area. (3) When the appropriate planning authority refuses to grant a permission to any person, shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand brief statement of the same....." Sec.105 of the Act, 1971 reads as follows: "Act to override contact and other laws: ....Save as otherwise provided in this Act, provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, custom, usage or contract....." Chapter X of the Tamil Nadu Municipalities Act, 1920 (Act V of 1920) provides for building regulations. Sec.192 of the Act V of 1920 reads as follows: "......Building site and construction or reconstruction of buildings: No piece of land used as a site for the construction of a building and no building shall be constructed reconstructed otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this part and of any or bylaws, made under this act relating to the use of building sites or the construction reconstruction of buildings..." Sec.197 of Act V of 1920 reads as follows: "........Application to construct or reconstruct building: (1) If any person intends to or reconstruct a building other than a hut, he shall send to the executive authority, (a) an application in writing for the approval of the site, together with a site plan of and (b) an application in writing for permission to execute the work together with aground-plan, elevations and sections of the building, and specification of the work. (2) Every document furnished under Sub-section shall contain such particulars and prepared in such manner as may be required under rules or bye-laws....." In the instant case, it is to be seen whether a sanction can be granted when the draft has been published under Sec.25 of the Act, 1971. Sec.48 of the Act, 1972 places certain restrictions on buildings and lands in the area of the planning authority. Mr.K.C.Rajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unless a final plan is published in Gazette, the authorities cannot reject an application for construction of a building. Sec.48 of the Act, 1972 places certain restrictions on buildings and lands in the area of the planning authority. Mr.K.C.Rajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unless a final plan is published in Gazette, the authorities cannot reject an application for construction of a building. I am able to accept the contention of Mr.K.C.Rajappa, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that this Court should read that the aforesaid provision will apply only when final notification is made under Sec.30 of the Act, 1971 and not when a draft notification published under Sec.26 of the Act, 1971. I am not able to construe as the learned counsel for the petitioner wants me to construe the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1971. Sec.48of the Act, 1971 clearly shows the intention of the Legislature that even when publication under Sec.26 of the Act, 1971 are made, restrictions on buildings and lands in the area of planning authority comes in. So, in my view, once a draft plan is approved and published under Sec.26 of the Act, 1971, Chapter VI of the Act, 1971 comes into operation and construction made contra will be contravention of that section. In my view, it is not possible. 8. With regard to the contentions raised on the principles of natural justice, I am not able accept the arguments of Mr.K.C.Rajappa, the learned counsel for the petitioners. nobody ’ s case the final publication under Sec.30 of the Act, 1971 has been published. where it is published, the objection will be considered. What the learned counsel for petitioners contends before me is only based on the draft publication which is made under Sec.26 of the Act 1971. As such, I am not able to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and in my view, there is no merit in that argument. It is nobody case that final publication has been made. The decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Union of India v. Dev Raj Gupta, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 93, will not the facts of the cases on hand. In that case, under Sec.7 of the Delhi Development master plan has been prepared. All that has been held in that case if that the change of land cannot be effected unilaterally. That is not the case here. In that case, under Sec.7 of the Delhi Development master plan has been prepared. All that has been held in that case if that the change of land cannot be effected unilaterally. That is not the case here. Here, it is a question granting permission under the provi-sions of the Town and Country Planning Act, stands to-day. 9. However, I am of the view, that one another question has to be considered on the the case on hand, that is, whether the reasons given by the respondent are right for the grant of licence. On a careful reading of the impugned order before me, I am of that the reasons given in the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the Division Bench of this Court which is reported in The Executive Dr.Ramasubramani Raja, (1990)2 L.W. 608 , which affirmed the judgment of S.Ramalingam, J. which is reported in Dr.Ramasubramani Raja v. The Executive Officer, (1990)2 L.W. am of the view that the rejection order to grant permission in these cases also is and such they deserve to be quashed and they are set aside. As such W.P.Nos.4887 4889 of 1991 will stand allowed, setting aside the impugned order therein. But inclined to allow the W.P.Nos.4888 and 4890 of 1991.I am of the view that no will lie against the statutory provisions extracted above. It is open to the authorities consider the applications of the petitioners in so far these W.P.Nos.4888 and 4890 are concerned afresh and pass orders on or before 30.11.1991 on merits. The 4888 and 4890 of 1991 shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to the writ petitions. Petition dismissed.