Statutory notices issued under the Town and Country Plan Act must be addressed timely, allowing permit applications to be considered despite master plan constraints.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(a)“Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 5^th respondent to consider Exhibit P7 purchase notice issued by the petitioner;

(b)Direct the 4^th respondent Secretary to reconsider the application for the building permit dehors the Master plan if the 5^th respondent Municipal Council not resolved to acquire the property within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of issuance of Ext.P7 notice;

(c)Direct the 4^th respondent to consider the building permit application submitted by the petitioner in the light of Exhibit P8 judgment of this Hon’ble Court;

(d)Dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;

(e) Issue such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted an application for a building permit, as evidenced by Ext.P3. The same was not considered on the ground that the property is included in the Sanctioned Master Plan. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 purchase notice on 12-09-2025. There has been no response from the Municipality. Hence, in the light of the Ext. P8 judgment, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to a building permit.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. In a similar situation, this Court allowed the building permit application, as evident from Ext. P8. It will be better to extract Ext.P8 judgment:

“The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P8, which is an order passed in the application filed by the petitioner seeking a building permit. The reason stated in Ext.P8 is that the property where the petitioner sought permission for a residence was included as (SZ3) Stadium Zone in the published master plan.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have also issued a purchase notice, Ext.P9 on 26.2.2024 under Section 67 of the Town and Country Plan Act , 2016.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Municipality stating that even in the revised masterplan, the property in issue comes under the special zone (SZ3) Stadium Zone.

4. Taking note of the fact that the Municipality even now contends that the property is required for the development of a stadium, I deem it appropriate to fix a time limit within which the Municipality will take steps for acquiring the property. If no steps are taken within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the application submitted by the petitioner for a building permit, which is the subject matter of Ext.P8 order, will be considered on its merits subject to the relevant Building Rules, dehors the property being included in the special zone under the revised master plan. Orders shall be passed within four weeks from the expiry of the time noted above. To enable the above exercise, the impugned order is quashed.”

In this case, Section 67 notice was issued in accordance with the Town and Country Plan Act , 2016, and there is no response from the Municipality even after the statutory period. In the light of the above, I am of the view that a direction can be issued to the 4^th respondent to consider Ext.P3 application in accordance with the law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:

The 4^th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 application dehors the Master Plan, in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if it is otherwise in order.

Sd/-