SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1459

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
Mrs.A.Sreedevi - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 15952, 17159 and 17186 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos.20023, 21497, 21451, 21496, 21450 of 2003 and W.V.M.P.No. 1129 of 2003
Decided On : 23 September 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior counsel for M/s. P. Subba Reddy, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Senior counsel for Mr. K. Ramanath Reddy. For the Respondents:Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General for Mr. C. Ravichandran for R-1 in all W.Ps.

Issuance of NoC for power supply, sewerage and water connection does not amount to grant of planning permission.

Headnote:Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919-Sections 258(2) and 378-Stilt plus 8 floors build inspite of permission given for construction of stilt plus 4 floors-Construction of 4 floors beyond allowed limit held unauthorised-Order passed by Commissioner for demolition valid.

Judgment :-

COMMON ORDER

By consent of all the parties and in view of urgency in deciding the issue one way or other writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. Since all the three writ petitions relate to property bearing Nos. 11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the order No. 1704 dated 30-5-2003 issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under Section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919, calling upon the petitioner to fence off, take down, except stilt plus 4 floors, secure or repair such building so as to prevent any danger therefrom, the owner of the property, namely, A. Sridevi through her Power of Atttorney Dileep Bhandari has filed Writ Petition No. 15952/2003 to quash the same on various grounds.

2. The Power of Attorney Dileep Bhandari, aggrieved by the order No. ESI/10791/2002 dated 30-5-2003, passed by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-8, 2nd respondent herein, forfeiting security deposit of Rs.70,000/- for the building and Rs.10,000/-for the Display Board, has filed Writ Petition No. 17159/2003 to quash the same.

3. Questioning the order dated 30-5-2003 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai for the property bearing door Nos.11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (South) Mylapore, Chennai-4 issued under Section 378 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act intimating that the officers of the Corporation will enter the premises referred to above for the purpose of demolishing the building in dangerous condition after expiry of 12 hours from the service of the said notice, M/s Shanthi Builders-Developers has filed Writ Petition No. 17186/2003 to quash the same on various grounds.

4. The case of the owner of the property is briefly stated hereunder:

According to Power of Attorney, he is the owner of the property bearing door Nos.11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue(South), Mylapore, Chennai-4 and entrusted the property for joint development construction. Construction has been completed at the site over and above the sanctioned plan. The builder has put up additional floors and for putting up the same, applications had been made to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Rs.13,18,920-50 has been paid and completion certificate has been issued by the C.M.D.A., by letter dated 11-2-2003. At the instance of the Metro Water and Sewerage Board, while digging up work was going on in the front road portion, one of the columns of the building given crack and the neighbouring owners given complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Commissioner, Chennai Corporation.` All the above Agencies inspected the building and the Commissioner of Police issued order to take appropriate steps to strengthen the columns. The Member Secretary, C.M.D.A. issued notice dated 28-5-2003 and sought for explanation and given time upto 2-6-2003. He has taken Expert opinion and taking appropriate steps to strengthen the columns. At this juncture, the first respondent on 30-5-2003 around 11.30 P.M. affixed notice and stated that they want to demolish the buildign within 12 hours. No opportunity was given by the first respondent to the petitioner before passing the demolition notice. Hence the notice issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai is improper and against principles of natural justice. The petitioner had taken all steps to strengthen the columns. He also sought opinion from Experts and construction Engineers to strengthen the columns. He has also applied regularisation scheme with the C.M.D.A. and paid money also. The notice dated 30-5-2003 issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai is null and void. Hence the same is liable to be quashed.

5. The power of attorney in W.P.No. 17159/2003 in addition to the statement made in W.P.No. 15952/2003 has stated that petitioner had taken

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top