JUDGMENT

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.- Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. These six appeals have been heard together as they stem from a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposing of three writ petitions. Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under.

3. In April 1981 Pleasant Stay (Kodai) Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Hotel) applied to the Kodaikanal Township Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) for permission to construct a hotel building in the town of Kodaikanal. Along with the application it submitted the plan and other necessary documents. According to the plan the building was to comprise a ground floor and a first floor. The plan was sanctioned by the Committee on 1-11-1991 subject to the following, amongst others, conditions:

(i) the construction should be completed by 31-10-1992 and should not be continued thereafter without renewal;

(ii) if the construction was to be different from the sanctioned plan a new plan must be drawn and fresh permission obtained, in default, construction in breach of the plan should be removed; and

(iii) nothing should be done in variation of the sanctioned plan.

4. On 29-1-1992 the Hotel sent a revised plan to the Committee for its approval with a forwarding letter addressed to its Executive Officer, wherein it stated, inter alia, "the revised plan has been necessitated as the natural earth level of our site leaves us with 20 to 50 feet beam and column structure below the approved plan at different levels". In reply thereto the Committee informed the Hotel, by its letter dated 7-2-1992 that the application for sanction of the revised plan was rejected as the proposal to construct more than two floors was against clause 8.6.1 of the Master Plan Rules. The Hotel was also informed that no construction work should be commenced or proceeded with without obtaining licence or permission, otherwise action would be taken under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920(Act for short). Aggrieved by such rejection the Hotel preferred an appeal on 11-2-1992 to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development, through the Executive Officer of the Committee and the Director of Town and Country Planning. In the appeal the Hotel took the stand that the Contour Plan (attached therewith) of the land was such that while constructing the ground floor and first floor of the proposed building it had to leave open column and beam structure of 20 feet to 50 feet at different levels and that through the revised plan it wanted permission to fill up the open space under the already approved plan with rooms and other facilities of tourist interest for otherwise the open space would have to be filled up with stone and sand which, necessarily, would be a national waste. It was also stated therein that leaving the space under the building open as per the approved plan would project it only as a big water tank.

5. As in spite of rejection of the revised plan, the Hotel continued with the construction work. The Committee issued another notice on 22-4-1992 asking it to remove the offending constructions with a warning that action would be taken under Section 317 of the Act. In reply thereto the Hotel alleged that the Committee was acting with ulterior motive and denied to have made any construction against the Rules and Regulations. The Committee then filed a suit against the Hotel in the Court of the District Munsif, Kodaikanal, for a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the building unlawfully constructed in the suit property over and above the ground and the first floor and for a permanent injunction restraining the Hotel from raising any construction without prior approval and permission of the Committee.

6. Immediately after the suit was filed Palani Hills Conservation Council (Council for short), a Society formed with the object, amongst others,