ORDER
1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records dated 21-1-1995 in reference No. 13/92/F2 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner herein in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has stated that he is an advocate practising at Nagercoil and that he purchased by a Registered Sale deed, dated 18-3-1989, a property consisting of land measuring roughly 6 1/2 cent in Old Survey No. 1382/426, 427 together with the superstructure standing thereon hearing No. 10/2-6. It is also stated that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the said property by letting it out to the tenants. The petitioner has further slated that the title of the property purchased by the petitioner is traceable to a registered partition deed of the year 1947. He has further stated that the description of the
property purchased by him tallies with the partition deed. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is a highly influential person and therefore, the petitioner apprehending that the second respondent may proceed with the construction work filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 409 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagercoil for an injunction from putting up any constructions in the petitioner’s property. Along with the suit the petitioner also filed I.A. No. 441 of 1995 for an interim order of injunction and originally on an ex parte injunction order was granted by the Court which was vacated later on. It is further stated that the petitioner was not aware that the second respondent was having a site plan and a building permit in his favour issued by the first respondent. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the site plan and building permit issued by the first respondent on the ground that if a building is not constructed within the period specified in the building permit a fresh site plan have to be obtained again and only thereafter building permit can be issued by the authority concerned. It contended that there is infirmity in the impugned order which is as follows :–
“Permission granted in the office building permit No. LIR No. 256/92, dated 29-10-1992 is hereby renewed for a period of three years from 29-10-1994 to 28-10-1997.”
3. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally the site plan of lay-out plan and the building permit were sanctioned by the first respondent on 5-11-1992 and as the period lapsed, the site plan or lay out plan and building permit also lapsed. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 204 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which says that if the construction or reconstruction of any building is not completed within the period specified, the permission shall lapse and a fresh application shall be made before the work is continued. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order which says that the permission granted in the office building permit is hereby renewed for a period of three years, from 29-10-1994 to 28-10-1997 and submitted that the first respondent has no powrr to renew the lapsed building permission. It is further submitted, that Section 204 of the Act refers to a fresh application and not the renewal of the application and as such a renewal application is not maintainable. He further submitted that once the building permit lapsed by virtue of Section 204 of the Act, the entire procedure of approval of site plan or lay-out plan ol site also should be gone into once again and the lay-out plan or the site should be approved once again and then only, a fresh building permit should be issued by the first respondent. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 197 of the Act says that before a building permission is granted or reconstructing of a building, other than a hut, the executive of the municipality shall approve the site together with site plan of the land which is otherwise known as site plan or layout plan. In this case, the municipality has already approved the site plan and thereafter the building permit was granted on 29-10-1992 to the second respondent. Due to the reasons best known to the second respondent, the second respondent was not in position to put up the building within the time specified in the Building permit, dated 29-10-1992 and the original building permit lapsed and later on, the second respondent applied stating that the building plan should be renewed, I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner that just because the second respondent in his application used the term, ‘renewal of the building permit’ and the first respondent has given the permission using the word, ‘renewed’ for a period of three years from 29-10-199-1 to 28-10-1997, there is infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
4. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that if the authority has power to grant building permit just because the term, ‘renewed’ is used in the impugned order, it wilt not vitiate the building permit. I am of considered view that combined reading of Sections 191 to 206 contained in Chapter X building Regulations of the Act, it is clear
that once ‘a site plan’ is approved and thereafter, ‘building permit’ is granted by the concerned authority and the time specified in the building permit lapses because the applicant has not started construction or if construction is started and the same is not completed within the time specified in the permit, it is not necessary for the applicant to once again apply for sanction of site plan and only thereafter the concerned authority shall grant fresh permit to construct the building or continue the construction of the building. As per Section 197 of the Act, if any person intends to construct or re-construct a building other than the hut, he shall send to the executive authority (a) an application in writing for the approval of the site together with site plan of the land and (b) an application in writing for permission to execute the work together with the ground plan, elevations and sections of the building and a specification of the work. Section 191 of the Act says that the State Government may make rules or regulation for the use of the sites for building and for regulation or restricting of the building. Sub-section (2) of the Section 191 says that no insanitary or dangerous site shall be used for the building that no site shall be used for the construction of the building intended for public worship, if the construction of the building thereon will wound the religious feelings of any class of persons; sub-section (3) says that rules may be made for the matters contained in S. 191(3)(a) to (1) regarding information to be contained in application for permission to build and pian and specification of the building. Section 203 of the Act mentions the ground on which ‘an approval of site’ and a licence to construct or re-construct may be refused. With regard to approval of site, once the concerned authority approves the site plan in terms of Section 191 of the Act, viz., that no insanitary or dangerous site shall be used for building and that no site intended for public worship shall be constructed which will wound the religious feelings of any other class of persons and that the site shall comply with the other rules made by the State Government, there is no question of approval of site plan once against when application is made under Section 204 of the Act. A fresh permit is given under Section 204 of the Act for the site plan already approved and there is no question of once again examine the suitabi-lity of the site for the building which has already been approved by the concerned authority.
5. It is further alleged by the petitioner that a portion of the petitioner’s property, is shown as the property of the second respondent in the site plan and therefore, the site plan ought to be sanctioned afresh once again by the said first respondent. I am unable to accept the said contention of the petitioner. The petitioner has not objected to the original site plan when it was sanctioned. Further, the petitioner is not without any remedy. It is always open to the petitioner to seek his relief in civil court for alleged encroachment of his land. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 409 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Nagercoii. If the second respondent has encroached upon the property belonging to the petitioner, it is for the civil court to decide the same. In view of the above, there are no merits of this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
6. Petition dismissed.