ORDER : 1. The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition to call for the records of the respondents 1 and 2 in their proceedings dated 19.07.2012 in Na. Ka. No. 312/2012 and 06.09.2012 in O.Mu. No. 33104/2012/U3, respectively and quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant planning permission to the petitioner for construction of residential house for the property situated at Door No. 18/95-A, Dhenali Sogathorai Post, Kunnoor Taluk, Nilgiri District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of 0.04 acres at Door No. 18/95-A, in Survey No. 291/23 and New Survey No. 1372/12 in Patta No. 1923 situated in Dhenali Village, which was purchased by him in the year 1968 and registered as Doc. No. 330/1968 on 09.03.1968 at S.R.O. Coonoor. During the year 2011, some third person was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property and attempted to encroach the vacant space on the Northern side of the property. The petitioner filed an O.S. No. 68 of 2011 as against the third party strangers, who had attempted to intrude in his property. Pending trial of the said suit, Court below granted an ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner in I.A. No. 479 of 2011 in O.S. No. 68 of 2011 as early as on 22.12.2011 and it was made absolute on 16.02.2012. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for grant of plan approval from the official respondents herein on 07.06.2012 for construction of house on the Northern side of his property and the same was rejected due to the pendency of the above said suit. Hence, the petitioner once again gave representations to the respondents 1 and 2, however, the 2nd respondent without application of mind, had simply rejected the petitioner's application concurring with the 1st respondent's stand. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition with the prayer stated supra. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. Notice has been served to the respondents 3 to 5 and their names have been printed in the cause list, but they have not entered appearance. 5. According to the respondents 1 and 2 there is difference in survey no. Notice has been served to the respondents 3 to 5 and their names have been printed in the cause list, but they have not entered appearance. 5. According to the respondents 1 and 2 there is difference in survey no. and hence the request of the petitioner has been rejected, and it may be either clerical error or wrong entry. If the petitioner is able to produce the original title and if it is not disputed by anyone, the official respondents cannot prevent granting of planning permission. At later date, if it comes to the light that the petitioner has constructed a building in a different place and the land belongs to somebody else, the petitioner will have to face the consequences, including handing over of the site and the petitioner has no right to retain the land and building on the ground that he has constructed the building. 6. The sale deed is the ultimate document for the purpose of claiming ownership over the property and the patta is only an incidental document. The patta will not decide the title to the property. In this case, as the petitioner is owning the original sale deed, the genuineness of the petitioner's document can be verified at the Sub Registrar office and if it is in order and there are no legal impediments, the planning permission will be sanctioned. The building has got to be constructed with proper set back. This Court also makes it clear that the petitioner, after obtaining the planning permission, should not violate the building plan and thereafter seek regularisation. If such request is made, the same need not be entertained by the authorities. Pendency of the suit is not a bar, as the petitioner has got bare injunction and the title to the property is not in dispute as on date. Hence, this Court directs the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders on merits within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.