The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect Gramanatham lands from commercial exploitation and the implications of land classification on building permits.

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.8.2007 passed in W.P. No. 21930 of 2007.

2. The petitioner in the said writ petition is the first respondent herein and the respondents therein are the appellants. Respondents 2 and 3 have been impleaded as party respondents. The writ petition was filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent therein dated 17.4.2007 rejecting the request of the writ petitioner seeking building permit regarding the construction proposal of stilt plus four floors consisting of 256 dwelling units at Door No. 15, Reddy Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai, Old S. Nos. 72/2A, 79/1, 99/1 A, 99/3, T.S. No. 93, Block No. 31, Virugambakkam village; to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent therein to issue building permit forthwith to the writ petitioner, in the light of the planning permit dated 18.7.2006 issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The property comprised in Old S. Nos. 72/2A, 79/1, 99/1 A, 99/3 in T.S. No. 93, Block No. 31, Virugambakkam Village is owned by the first respondent herein by virtue of the Power of Attorney Deed dated 14.12.2000 executed by South India Corporation Agencies Limited in his favour. South India Corporation Agencies Limited and the first respondent entered into a joint venture for developing the said property into group development consisting of stilt plus four floors of residential dwelling units. The first respondent applied to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 30.8.2005 seeking planning permission. On payment of the necessary fees and charges to the CMDA, planning permission was granted to the first respondent on 18.7.2006 for construction of stilt plus four floors in nine blocks. The said planning permission was forwarded to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, for granting building permit. However, the Commissioner viz., the second appellant herein, by order dated 17.4.2007, rejected the application submitted by the first respondent seeking building permit stating that Old Survey No. 99/3 has been classified as “Gramanatham” and therefore it is not possible to grant building permit in respect of Old Survey No. 99/3. The second appellant also directed the first respondent herein to re-submit the proposal for construction, excluding Old Survey No. 99/3.

4. Challenging the said order, the first respondent filed the above writ petition.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the first respondent submitted the application seeking building permit by including the Gramanatham land. Unless correct particulars are furnished, the first respondent is not entitled to get building permit on the basis of the planning permission issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 18.7.2006. The planning permission issued by the CMDA is only provisional and the first respondent has been imposed with a condition that he should obtain permission from the Corporation. Patta was issued to the first respondent erroneously and the appellants have sent a letter to the Collector concerned to cancel the said patta. The first respondent has constructed the building without obtaining permission from the appellants and therefore a notice had already been issued to him under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1990 for putting up unauthorised construction. The appellants, being public servants, are entitled to protect the properties belonging to the Government and the first respondent cannot claim ownership of the properly, which is classified as Gramanatham. Since the order under challenge had been passed without considering the above materials, it is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the first