The central legal point established is that property rights cannot be restricted without the authority of law, as guaranteed by Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution.

B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.

This writ petition has been filed as a pro bono publico seeking restraint against the 3rd respondent from exercising her rights over the property, in which the Madras Club is situated. Planning to build a new structure on the said property, by demolishing the old structure, the 3rd respondent has applied to both the first and second respondents for the grant of necessary permissions. The first respondent is the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vested with the power of granting planning permission, while the second respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Chennai vested with the power of sanctioning permissions for both demolition of existing structures and also construction of new structures in its place.

2. The plea of the writ petitioner is that the building with its appertaining land, whole of which ad measure 20 acres, is a heritage building, and it has been identified as such by the Heritage Advisory Committee, which was formed to advice CMDA i.e., the 1st respondent, and being heritage building, it cannot either be permitted to be demolished or to make new construction thereon.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 had filed separate counters stating that there is no law to declare the above property as a heritage property, and to restrain the 3rd respondent from either demolishing the same or putting up new structures in its place. It is the specific stand of the 1st respondent that though the government has appointed a Committee in G.O.Ms.No.179 H & UD dated 25.5.1998 to look after the matter relating to enactment of the Heritage Act, no such Act has been enacted, and that Rule 22 of the Development Control Rules is the only law governing the subject.

4. The 2nd respondent - Municipal Corporation has also taken a similar stand, and submitted particulars of the application made by the 3rd respondent seeking permission for demolition of the structures, and the grant of the same by it, owing to the dilapidated condition of the building. The application by 3rd respondent was filed on 13.4.1998 and the permission by the 2nd respondent was granted on 30.4.1998. It is also the stand of the 2nd respondent that in the tentative list of heritage buildings, the above building do not find place, and that there is no approved list of heritage buildings notified by the Government till this date. Even though proceedings were issued to conduct a meeting for the enactment of heritage legislation for Tamil Nadu, no such legislation has been enacted, and the draft rules, which were proposed, have never been translated into statutory one. It is emphatically stated by the 2nd respondent that the above building is not a heritage building, that there is no declaration or classification as such, either passed by the Government or enacted by the legislature, declaring the above building as heritage building, and that the above building has got no historical significance. Further the above building is in a dilapidated condition endangering the life of the general public, and for public safety and in the interest of public the building has got to be demolished, as such permission was accorded long back on 30.4.1998, whereas the writ petitioner's application objecting demolition was filed only on 18.7.2002.

5. Similar is the stand of the 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the property. She stated in her counter that the building is not a heritage building, that there is no law prohibiting her either from demolishing the same or from constructing new structures in its place, and that the old structure was in a dilapidated condition, and necessarily to be demolished, for which permission was sought for, by agreeing to give 10% Open Space Reservation Area to CMDA, as per the planning permission of the 1st respondent-CMDA, and the structure, which is existing in the 10% area to be offered to CMDA, has to be demolished, and vacant land alone has to be given to CMDA towards Open Space Reservation Area. It is stated by t