Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned notice of the 3rd respondent made in Ka.Ma.No.48/2002/F1, dated 12.7.2002 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the building permission without insisting the payment of the demand as made in the impugned notice. 2. The petitioner made an application for approval of planning permission for the construction of a building and that application was made on 30.4.2002 and followed by another request on 23.5.2002 in terms of Section 197 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. A reply notice was issued by the respondent on 12.7.2002 stating that the application is under consideration for favourable orders. However, as a condition precedent for grant of approval, a sum of Rs.2,08,566/- was demanded as land tax. Aggrieved by this demand, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pleaded that the notice issued under Section 203 r/w 212 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act does not empower the authority to collect the land tax for the purpose of granting planning permission. 4. Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act reads as follows:- "(203) Grounds on which approval of site for, or licence to construct or reconstruct building, may be refused. 4. Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act reads as follows:- "(203) Grounds on which approval of site for, or licence to construct or reconstruct building, may be refused. - The only grounds on which approval of a site for the construction or reconstruction of a building or permission to construct or reconstruct a building may be refused are the following, namely:- (1) that the work, or use of the site for the work or any of the particulars comprised in the site plan, ground plan, elevations, sections or specification would contravene some specified provision of any law, or some specified order, rule, declaration or by-law made under any law; (2) that the application for such permission does not contain the particulars or is not prepared in the manner required under rules or by-laws; (3) that any of the documents referred to in section 197 have not been signed as required under rules or by-laws; (4) that any information or documents required by the (executive authority) under rules or by-laws has or have not been duly furnished; (5) that streets or roads have not been made as required by section 175; or (6) that the proposed building would be an encroachment upon (Government or municipal land). Whenever the (executive-authority) or the council refuses to approve a building-site for a building or to grant permission to construct or reconstruct a building, the reasons for such refusal shall be specifically stated in the order or resolution. " 5. None of the ground specified state that the payment of land tax is a condition president for grant of approval or refusing to grant planning permission. It is not in dispute that Section 212, which is referred to in the impugned proceedings does not apply to the present case. 6. In view of the specific clause provided in Section 203 of the Act stating the grounds on which, approval of sites or licence to constructor reconstruction or refusal, does not include the payment of land tax. the demand made by the respondents in the impugned proceedings to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,566/-towards land tax as a condition precedent for considering the application is bad. 7. The impugned proceedings insofar as the demand of land tax for grant of approval is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. the demand made by the respondents in the impugned proceedings to pay a sum of Rs.2,08,566/-towards land tax as a condition precedent for considering the application is bad. 7. The impugned proceedings insofar as the demand of land tax for grant of approval is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, insofar as the land tax is concerned, the authorities are entitled to proceed against the petitioner as per the relevant provisions of the Act. No costs.