IMPORTANT POINT
Lapsed building permissions under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act cannot be extended; applications after significant delays must be treated as fresh applications.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

[Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 30.11.2020 passed in W.P.Nos.13777 & 13874 of 2020 respectively.]

Application submitted by the 1st respondent seeking extension of time, to commence the building construction, as per the Building Plan Permission granted was under challenge in the writ proceedings.

2. The writ court allowed the writ petition, which came to be challenged by way of intra-court appeal by the Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municipality.

3. There is no serious dispute on facts. The 1st respondent submitted application seeking Building Plan Permission, which was originally granted in the year 2007 and 2014 respectively. Admittedly, the 1st respondent had not commenced building construction and consequently the Building Plan Approval lapsed. Subsequently, application seeking extension of time to commence the construction based on the original Building Plan Approval was sought for and rejected by the appellant in the year 2019. The said order came to be challenged in the writ proceedings.

4. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. P. Srinivas, appearing behalf of the appellant in both the writ appeals would submit that under Section 204 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), if the construction or reconstruction of any building is not completed within a period specified, permission shall lapse, a fresh application shall be made before the work is continued. Therefore, for all purposes, the Building Plan Permission granted to the respondents in the year 2007 and 2014 become lapsed and there is no provision for granting extension of time to commence the construction based on the original Building Plan Permission granted in the year 2007 and 2014.

5. The learned Advocate General would further submit that Chapter-X-A was inserted by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Amendment Act, 1992 with effect from 09.12.1992. Chapter-X-A would apply only to hill stations. Section 217-F denotes period of license. Accordingly, every license granted under [Section 217-D or 217-DD] shall be valid for a period of one year from the date on which it is granted and if the construction or reconstruction of a building or the user of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, or the engineering, mining or other allied operation for which the license is granted, is not commenced within the said period, it shall not be commenced thereafter unless [the State Government or the Executive Authority as the case may be], on application made therefor has extended the period of license.

6. Relying on the above provision, the learned Advocate General would contend that the applications submitted after a period of about 12 years and 5 years respectively cannot be considered and such applications are to be construed as fresh application for the purpose of granting Building Plan Approval. Therefore, applications submitted by the 1st respondent must be considered based on the law prevailing as on the date of application and the 1st respondent cannot seek extension of time to construct the building based on the original Building Plan Approval granted in the year 2007 and 2014 respectively.

7. Mr. T. Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in both the writ appeals would oppose by stating that the 1st respondent has not even commenced construction based on the Original Building Plan Approval granted in the year 2007 and 2014. They are law abiding citizen and would proceed with the construction only after obtaining due approval from the competent Authority.

8. Section 217-F would provide that extension application would be entertainable and in the present case, there is no change in law, which would be applicable for grant of Building Plan Permissions. Thus, there is no impediment for the appellant to grant Building Plan Permission by entertaining the extension applicati