Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology Trust vs The Director of Town and Country Planning and Others

R. Subbiah, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent in and by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 319/2013, dated 07.04.2015 and consequential direction to the respondents to grant planning and building permission to the petitioner institution.

It is averred in the affidavit that the petitioner Trust is running various educational institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu and is also having a Deemed University in the name and style of Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology (PRIST University). Earlier, the petitioner trust proposed to construct an Engineering College and also obtained necessary building plan approval from the local body viz., Vallam Town Panchayat on 17.05.2007, for construction of some buildings. Since the first respondent being the competent authority, as per the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, the petitioner had applied to the second respondent for granting of building plan permission on 12.04.2012. After receipt of the same, the second respondent herein directed the petitioner to submit some more particulars to forward the plan to the first respondent herein by a letter dated 25.06.2012. Pursuant to the same, on 29.08.2012 the petitioner had submitted all the required documents. Even thereafter, the second respondent sent various communications directing the petitioner to submit some more documents and in obedience to the same, the petitioner also submitted all the required documents and after receipt of the same, the first respondent had granted planning permission by a letter dated 23.08.2013 on condition that the petitioner has to execute a Gift Deed for Open Space Reservation (OSR) Area of 5390 Sq. Ft. along with approach road and to obtain No Objection Certificate from Public Works Department Authority for construction of a small bridge across the water channel. In fact, by letter dated 26.04.2013, the second respondent sent a communication to the petitioner stating that so far as the area reserved for open space reservation, the petitioner has not executed a Gift Deed in favour of the local body and directed the petitioner to execute a Gift Deed within a period of one week. Apart from that, the petitioner was also directed to get a No Objection Certificate for construction of a small bridge across the water channel. On receipt of the same, the petitioner had executed a Gift Deed in favour of Vallam Town Panchayat dated 17.04.2013, duly registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Vallam and handed over the copy to the second respondent on 26.04.2013, which was also acknowledged by the second respondent. Even thereafter, the second respondent went on issuing letters directing the petitioner to submit so many documents which are not relevant for building approval. While so, on 07.05.2013, the petitioner had sent a detailed letter expressing their displeasure for the indifferent attitude of the second respondent as the petitioner has already obtained permission from the Tahsildar, Thanjavur on 27.08.2007 itself, for constructing a small bridge and only after obtaining the permission from the Tahsildar, they had constructed a bridge and hence, there is no necessity for getting further No Objection Certificate from Public Works Department. However, in order to comply with the direction of the second respondent, on 12.02.2013, the petitioner had approached the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Tanjavur, for issuance of No Objection Certificate for the bridge already constructed in rain water canal. Since, the Public Works Department delayed to grant permission, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in WP(MD) No. 10581 of 2014, seeking direction to the Public Works Department to issue No Objection Certificate and this Court by order dated 11.07.2014, directed the Public Works Department to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Thereafter, by order dated 09.12.2014, the Executive Engineer, GA Canal, Thanjavur, issued a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. After receipt of the same, on 17.12.2014, the petitioner had submitted the same to the second respondent and also requested them to process the documents and to issue necessary building plan approval at the earliest point of time as directed by the first respondent.

It is further averred in the affidavit that the first respondent had granted approval for all the buildings with two conditions viz., (i) the OSR land should be handed over to the Local Body and (ii) to get No Objection Certificate from the Public Works Department. In spite of compliance of both the conditions, the second respondent had failed to forward the application to the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner had filed W.P.(MD)No.1694 of 2015, seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider their application and the representation dated 17.02.2014, and to grant building and planning approval. This Court by order dated 11.02.2015, directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order on merit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After receipt of a copy of the order, the second respondent had passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 in and by which the second respondent imposed a new condition that the petitioner should apply for a fresh permission including for the administrative block, to get a technical approval from the first respondent and to hand over the approach road to the Local Body, apart from payment of infrastructure and amenity charges and in absence of the above, permission cannot be granted. Hence, challenging the said impugned order, this Writ Petition has been filed.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the first respondent had granted technical sanction for the petitioner''s college building with the following conditions:

"(i) the second respondent should grant approval only after receiving the proof of documents for the handing over of OSR land and its approach road to the local body; and

(ii) the second respondent should grant approval only after submitting the NOC by the petitioner for the bridge which was constructed in front of the campus from Public Works Department."

The petitioner has handed over the approach road to OSR area to the local body and the same has been informed to the second respondent. The petitioner has also submitted NOC for the bridge which was issued by Public Works Department to the second respondent. Further, the petitioner had constructed administrative building with ground plus three floors which is not mentioned in the sanctioned drawing by the first respondent and the same has been informed and clarification was sought from the first respondent. In the clarification letter dated 07.04.2015, it is informed that to submit the revised drawing which includes the administrative building which was omitted to be mentioned in the plan. In fact, no new condition was added to the condition which was already imposed by the first respondent. Thus, the respondents sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2007 the petitioner Trust had proposed to construct an Engineering College and in order to obtain necessary building plan approval, the petitioner had approached the local body viz., Vallam Panchayat on 17.05.2007. The local body had also granted permission on 17.05.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that since the area in which the Engineering College was constructed by the petitioner trust is a non-planning area, no permission of the respondent is necessary. However, in the year 2010, amendment was introduced to Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and as per the amendment, prior permission of the respondent is necessary for construction of building in the non-planning area. Though the petitioner has got approval plan in the year 2007 itself, in view of the amendment to the provision, the petitioner Trust had once again applied for permission. The permission was granted on two conditions viz., 10% of OSR area should be handed over to the local body and as for the small bridge which has been constructed across the rain water channel permission is needed from the Public Works Department. The petitioner had complied with the said conditions by executing a gift deed dated 17.04.2013 in favour of the Vallam Town Panchayat. Even thereafter, the second respondent instead of granting permission imposed new conditions by the impugned order viz., the petitioner should apply for a fresh permission including the administrative block and to get a technical approval from the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 26.06.2013 in which it is stated that the educational institutions can retain OSR area themselves by keeping it open to sky without any construction with the condition that it should be utilized only as a park and not as a playground by the concerned institutions. The guideline value should not be collected in lieu of Open Space Reservation area in such cases. Thus, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that as per the said Government Order, Open Space Reservation area should be kept open to sky without any construction. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has handed over the OSR area to the Vallam Town Panchayat and also obtained No Objection Certificate from the Public Works Department for construction of a small bridge across the rain water canal. But, in spite of that, now once again the second respondent had passed the impugned order to hand over the approach road from Administrative Block to the main road. Hence, when the said Government Order No. 161 permits the educational institution to retain the OSR area to be kept open to sky, now there is no need for the petitioner institution to hand over the approach road to the local body. Thus, the petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 and consequential direction to the respondents to grant planning and building permission to the petitioner institution.

By way of reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 26.06.2013, came into effect only on 26.06.2013 but the planning permission was granted by the Director of Town and Country Planning to the petitioner college on 28.03.2013. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim the advantage granted in the said Government Order. Thus, the respondents sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Heard the submissions made by the respective counsels appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

Keeping in mind the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the entire materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that as per G.O. Ms. No. 161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 26.06.2013, the petitioner need not hand over OSR area and they themselves can keep it open to the sky but in spite of that, the petitioner had gifted the OSR area to the local body and as directed by the second respondent, the petitioner has also complied with the another condition by obtaining NOC for the small bridge constructed across the rain water channel from the Public Works Department. However, now by the impugned order, one more condition was imposed to hand over the approach road to the main road to the local body. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that when the said Government Order clearly states that the petitioner institution can retain the OSR area to be kept open to sky, there is no question of compelling the petitioner to hand over the approach road to the main road to the local body. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondents to deny permission is not legally sustainable and the impugned order is in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 26.06.2013. Hence, the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.