Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had applied to the first respondent, for the grant of building permission, for the construction of a residential house, in Survey No.1178/3A/2A, by way of his applications, dated 20.07.2010 and 07.10.2010. 3. The petitioner had claimed that the first respondent ought to have granted the planning permission, in favour of the petitioner, as prayed for by him, as per patta No.396, Plot No.192-A, Layout plan No.26/70. However, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, by way of his order, dated 14.10.2010, stating that the land in question, in respect of which the petitioner had applied for planning permission, has been reserved only for the formation of a park. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, this Court had directed the Tahsildar, Madhavarm Taluk, who has been impleaded as the third respondent, to file a report before this Court, along with the relevant records, after inspecting the property in question. The Tahsildar, Madhavaram Taluk, has submitted a report before this Court, dated 28.06.2012, which reads as follows: "In invite kind attention to the reference cited. Tiruvallur District, Madhavaram Taluk, S.No.1178/3A/2A patta No.396, plot no,192-A layout plan 26/70 situated at No.50, Madhavaram Village. The revenue records show that the above property measuring an extent of 4230 sq.ft. or 393 sq.metres is classified as Ryotwari Nanjai in the name of Thiru. Natesanaicker. The petitioner Thiru. A.Prakash s/o.C.Apachi, residing at No.92C Paper Mills Road, Chennai-11 also is the power agent of S.Prabakar s/o.P.Sundaraman of Perambur, Chennai-11 has claimed that the Survey No.1178/2A2 of Madhavaram Village measuring an extent of 1959 sq.ft. or 182 sq.metre class fied as Ryotwari nanjai held in the name of S.Prabakar vide document No.994/2010 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sembium, Chennai-11. The revenue records also show that patta was issued to one Mr.Prabakar S/o Sundarajan for the Old S.No.1178/2A2, and as per the new Town Survey, Ward-D, Block-2, of T.S.No.91/2 measuring an extent of 182 sq.metre. Inspection of the land in question shows that it is a vacant land and the petitioner claims to have applied for planning permission with the first respondent for house construction. Inspection of the land in question shows that it is a vacant land and the petitioner claims to have applied for planning permission with the first respondent for house construction. Whereas the first respondent had denied planning permission to the petitioner's land in question vide their letter No.Na.Ka.444/2010/F1 dated 14.10.2010 stating that the S.No.1178/3A2A is classified as public park purpose. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has filed the W.P.No.28075/2010 under Article 226 of Constitution of India a Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the above document of the first respondent and to quash the same and direct the first respondent to grant the planning permission for construction of houses. The petitioner is owning and bearing the S.No.1178/3A2A of Madhavaram Village for which the Planning permission was requested from the first respondent. Whereas as per the revenue records the S.No.1178/2A2 measuring an extent of 182 Sq.metres or 1959 sq.ft. only held by Thiru.S.Prabakar and Patta was also issued in his name. Further it is submitted that the first respondent has to prove that the land in question bearing S.No.1178/3A2A is meant for Public Park purpose, as challenged by the petitioner in letter No.Na.Ka.444/2010/F1 dated 14.10.2010. On virtue of the S.No.1178/2A2 the 2nd respondent of the Tahsildar, Madhavarm has no inspection even been made. Since, the above said land is being under the consideration of 1st respondent. He is the sole authority to decide issue, Where it is meant for any purpose." 4. It is also stated that, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, Madhavaram Municipality has been brought under the jurisdiction of Chennai Corporation. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Zone-III, Madhavaram, Chennai, has been impleaded as the fourth respondent in the present Writ Petition. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if this Court is pleased to set aside the order of the first respondent, dated 14.10.2010, as it had been passed without taking into account the relevant revenue records, and if the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the applications of the petitioner for planning permission, in respect of the property in question, taking into consideration the report filed by the Tahsildar, Madhavaram, dated 28.06.2012, and by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the other parties. 4. 4. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order of the first respondent, dated 14.10.2010. The Assistant Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Zone-III, Chennai, the fourth respondent herein, is directed to consider the applications of the petitioner, for planning permission, dated 20.07.2010 and 07.10.2010, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as to the other parties concerned, if any, taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar, Madhavaram, dated 28.06.2012. The said exercise shall be completed by the fourth respondent, `within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.