The judgment emphasized the citizens' rights to property and residence, and the binding nature of previous court orders on the authorities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings in Ka.Vi.No.53/2022/F2 dated 14/2/2023 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to pass orders on the petitioner''s building permit application dated 1/9/2020.)

This writ petition has been filed to quash the Proceeding, dated 14/2/2023, passed in Ka.Vi.No.53/2022/F2, on the file of the respondent and consequently, direct the respondent to pass orders, on the petitioner''s building permit application, dated 1/9/2020.

2. Impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner, rejecting the building permission, on the ground that the proposed building is located within 150 meters from a reserve forest, and hence, grant of permission is forbidden by Rule 7 (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993.

3. Heard Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of a peace of land, measuring an extent of 0.03 acres situated at Segur Road, bearing T.S.No.A-1/65, in Ootacamund town, The Nilgiris, by virtue of a sale deed, dated 12/10/2018, under Document No.1463/2013, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Udhagmandalam. After his purchase, he made an application, on 1/9/2020, before the respondent, under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993, for grant of permission, to construct a residential building. However, the same has been rejected, on the ground that the proposed building is located 150 meters away from a reserve forest, and hence, grant of permission is forbidden by Rule 7 (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 7 (2) of he Act, will apply only in respect of the assignment of land made by the Government. The said Rule has been introduced, only to get over Revenue Standing Orders. Sub-Clause (iii) of Revenue Standing Orders 38 deals with Land in the vicinity of reserved forests, wherein, the assignment was permitted by the Collector with the consultation of the District Forest Officer.

6. Restriction to grant of building permit is covered under Rule 5 (5) of the said Act and the same reads as follows:-

“No site situated within a distance of 200 metres from the boundaries of lakes in Kodaikanal and Udhagamandalam, 100 metres from the Boundaries of Botanical Gardens at Uthagamandalam, 100 metres from the boundaries of Gymkhana Grounds at Kodaikanal, 100 metres from the boundaries of Race Course at Uthagamandalam and 100 metres from the boundaries of Sims Park at Conoor shall be used for construction of any building or change the present character and use in any manner.”

7. The main point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when the land is already classified as primary residential zone, rejection of the application, citing Rule 7 (2) is wholly illegal. Hence, prays to quash the impugned order.

8. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondent.

9. When the Court has expressed its mind to the effect that the issue is only with regard to mis-interpreting the Rule, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that since the Rule is incorporated in the District Municipalities Act, the same will bar the construction. When this Court further pointed out that there is no such provision in the Rule, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and walked away, without answering the legal points. Above conduct of the learned Standing Counsel is against the very professional ethics. It is his duty to answer the question posed by the Court on legal issues.

10. Be that as it may. Since the issue is involving the