The court upheld the importance of adhering to approved plans and court directions, emphasizing the consequences of wilful disobedience and the lack of scope for regularisation of illegal construction.

P. Shanmugam, J.

1. This is a petition seeking to review the order passed in Contempt Application No.560 of 2000 dated 2.3.2001 in Writ Appeal No.l 171 of 2000. By the above order, the Division Bench allowed the contempt application against the petitioner herein by imposing a fine with a further direction to demolish the unauthorised and deviated construction within one month from 2.3.2001, and on their failure, directing the second and third respondents herein to carry out the direction. The appeal C.A. No. 1837 of 2001 filed by the petitioner against the said order before the Supreme Court was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate relief by way of a review petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioner herein is the owner of property measuring about 4-1/2 grounds at Door No.67, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. He obtained a planning permission from the third respondent herein dated 3.4.2000 for putting up construction of basement floor, Stilt parking floor and four other floors with a condition that the ground floor should be used with Stilt car park. The first respondent herein, who is the owner of the land adjacent to the petitioner's land, alleging that the petitioner had started construction violating the approved plan, filed Writ Petition No. 10965 of 2000 and obtained an interim injunction before a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.M.P. No. 15739 of 2000 on 30.6.2000. The said order was vacated by another learned Judge of this Court by order dated 7.7.2000 stating that the third respondent herein had seized of the matter and it is for them to consider and ascertain whether there is any violation of any of the provisions of the Development Control Rules and giving liberty to the third respondent to take appropriate action if there is any deviation, vacated the interim injunction. The first respondent herein filed W.A. No. 1171 of 2000 and by a judgment dated 3.8.2000, the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to put up construction as per the approved plan/sanctioned plan, provided he also furnishes an undertaking to the effect that if any construction is found in variation or in violation of the sanctioned plan, he will demolish the same at his own risk and cost. The first respondent was directed to furnish the undertaking and only then could he proceed with the construction as per the approved plan. It was made clear that the third respondent was free to take any action against violation by the petitioner herein and that the pendency of the writ petition will not be a bar to the same. The first respondent herein moved Contempt Application No.560 of 2000, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has disobeyed the directions. After considering the petition, by an order dated 2.3.2001, the Division Bench allowed the application and found the petitioner guilty of contempt and also imposed a fine with a direction to demolish the unauthorised and deviated construction made after 3.8.2000. The appeal C.A. No. 1837 of 2001 filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court. Hence the present review application.

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Gopalasubramaniam appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Division Bench proceeded as though there was no undertaking furnished. According to him, the investigation conducted as per the directions established the factum of furnishing the undertaking. That apart, there is intrinsic evidence as to the receipt of the undertaking. The Member Secretary of the third respondent, by his letter addressed to the petitioner dated 18.9.2000, has acknowledged receipt of the undertaking. Therefore, there is no cause of action for a contempt and even if there is any, the same has been obliterated. According to him, there was a revised plan filed on 19.7.2000 and the construction was being put up only in accordance with the said revised plan and any construction co