ORDER: C.R.P. No.4154 of 2001 was preferred by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority against the interm order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court on the main plea that the suit filed against them is barred under Sec.101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner at that time that inspite of this specific bar, about 700 suits are filed against the notices issued under the Act and interim orders obtained without reference to the maintainability of the suits. It was further submitted that in lieu of ex parte orders passed by various City Civil Courts, their whole object of providing an orderly planned development of the urban land is being defeated.

2. In the light of the above submission, a suo motu revision was taken by against those suits pending and the records were called for by an order dated 21.12.2001. Notices to the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in those suits were ordered to be given on 8.3.2002 and the matter was since adjourned for hearing the counsel and ultimately, it was heard on 28.3.2002.

3. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the action taken by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is liable to be challenged in a Civil Court. Sec.101 of the Act reads as follows:

“101. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts: Any decision or order of the tribunal or the Government or the planning authority or other authority or of any officer under this Act shall subject to any appeal or revision or review provided under this Act, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of Law.”

A plain reading of the Section leaves no room for doubt that a decision or order of the planning authority shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law. The argument of the counsel on the side of the respondents is twofold. Firstly, a notices issued under the Act is neither an order nor a decision appealable or revisable and therefore, they will not come within the purview of Sec.101. Secondly, it is contended that the development of the building had been carried out more than three years earlier and therefore, they are excluded from the purview of the Act.

4. For a better appreciation of these submission, it is necessary to go through the relevant provisions of the Act. ‘Development’ has been defined under Sec.2(13) as to mean not only the carrying out of the works contemplated as per the plan, but shall include the carrying out of building or other operation in or over the land or the making of a material change in the use of any building or land. The proviso to this Section excludes the temporary repair work. Sec.49 of the Act deals with the application for permission. Any one intending to carry out any development in a land or building shall have to make an application in writing to the appropriate planning authority for permission in such form and containing such particulars and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed. An appeal to the Director is provided for against the refusal to grant permission under Sec.76 of the Act. A further appeal to the tribunal under Sec.77 and a revision to the District Court under Sec.78 are provided for under the Act.

5. If any development of land or building is carried out without the permission or if it is done unauthorisedly or done in contravention of such permission, Sec.56 empowers the removal of such unauthorised development by the competent authority. Before taking any decision, the appropriate planning authority has to serve a notice on the owner requiring him within a minimum of one month period to take such steps as may be specified in the notice. If the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land or building, a notice shall be served on the occupier also. The said notice issued under Sec.56 readwith Sec.85 (for restoration) of the Act states that on inspection made on a particular date, it was found that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document