Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2604 (MAD)

Jayanthi v. Commissioner Pallavaram Municipality

2012-06-22

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the only reason shown by the respondents for their refusal to process and release the building permission in respect of the land in question, is the non-payment of vacant land tax, by the petitioners, in respect of the said land. He had pointed out that the grounds on which the approval of site for the construction or reconstruction of the building or permission to construct or reconstruct the building may be refused are enumerated under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920. While so, it is not open to the respondent Municipality to raise certain other issues, which are not specified in the provisions of Section 203 of the said Act. Therefore, the refusal of the respondent to process and to release the building permission, to the petitioners, cannot be based on the fact that the petitioners had not paid the vacant land tax, in respect of the land in question, especially, in view of the interim order of stay granted by this Court, on 10.02.2012, in M.P.No.2 of 2012, in W.P.No.3096 of 2012, relating to the assessment notice issued by the respondent Municipality for the payment of vacant land tax, in respect of the land in question. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, made in Mr. V. Venkatachalam and another Versus Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation and others reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 551 , in support of his claim that the non-payment of the vacant land tax cannot be shown as a ground to refuse the processing and releasing of the building permission. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that any information or documents, if required by the Executive authority, under the rules or the bye laws, has or have not been duly furnished by the petitioners, it would not be possible for the respondent to process and to release the building permission, in respect of the land in question, as prayed for by the petitioners in W.P.No.6996 of 2012. 4. 4. The learned counsel had further submitted that the petitioners are liable to pay the vacant land tax as it comes under the definition of 'property tax', as defined under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to pay the same. Therefore, the application for building permission has not been processed. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents, and on the perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to process the application for building permission submitted by the petitioners and to release the same to the petitioners on their furnishing a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.77,67,765/-, to the satisfaction of the respondents, as directed by this Court, in M.P.No.2 of 2012, in W.P.No.3096 of 2012. The petitioners shall furnish the Bank Guarantee, as directed by this Court, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and on the petitioners furnishing such Bank Guarantee, the respondent shall process the application of the petitioners for building permission and release the same, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. It is also made clear that the furnishing of the Bank Guarantee, by the petitioners, as directed by this Court, would not be taken to be an acceptance of the liability of the petitioners to pay the vacant land tax, as demanded by the respondent. The liability of the petitioners to pay such tax would depend upon the final decision to be made, in W.P.No.3096 of 2012, with regard to the liability of the petitioners to pay the vacant land tax. However, in view of difficulties expressed by the petitioners in paying the vacant land tax and in view of the irreparable harm being caused to the petitioners, due to the delay in the processing and releasing of the building permission sought by the petitioners, the present order is being passed. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, with regard to the liability of the petitioners to pay the vacant land tax, which is subject to the final decision to be made by this Court in W.P.No.3096 of 2012. 7. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, with regard to the liability of the petitioners to pay the vacant land tax, which is subject to the final decision to be made by this Court in W.P.No.3096 of 2012. 7. It is also made clear that on the petitioners furnishing the bank guarantee, as directed by this Court, the respondent shall process and release the building permission as prayed for by the petitioners, if the application of the petitioners, for the building permission, is in order and if all the other requirements are satisfied, by the petitioners, as prescribed by law. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscallenous Petition is closed.