The introduction of Chapter XA of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act excluded the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and ceased the appellant's power to take action after the introduction of Act 58 of 1992.

1. The appellant in all the appeals filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from putting up further construction and for mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the respondent without getting permission from the appellant.

2. According to the appellant, the respondent/school is situate within the 200 meters from the Ootacamund Lake and therefore as per Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hilly Areas Special Building Rules, 1981, the respondent cannot put up the construction without getting the permission from the appellant and the respondent without getting proper permission put up the construction and therefore notice was issued under Section 216 (1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act and the respondent sent reply which was not acceptable, and thereafter started construction and hence, the suit was filed for the reliefs prayed for.

3. The contention of the respondent was that the appellant sought for permission and no action was taken and therefore, they presumed that permission was granted and they proceeded with the construction.

4. It was further contended that Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hilly Areas Special Building Rules, 1981 will not apply to the facts of the case and the respondent has not put up any new construction and they have only started constructing the first floor and therefore, there is no prohibition for putting up first floor.

5. During the pendency of the suit, Chapter XA was introduced into the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act by Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1992 (Act 58 of 1992) and in pursuant to Section 217-C, Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993 was also passed and on the basis of the provisions of the Act 58 of 1992 and the Rules framed thereunder, trial Court held that the appellant has no power to take action and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as per the provisions of Section 217-N and therefore, the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit.

6. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the said findings and dismissed the appeal and hence the second appeal was filed.

The following substantial question of law were framed:

a) Whether in law, the provisions of Section 217 N in Chapter XA of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, would apply to the facts of the present case, when admittedly, action was initiated under Section 216 (1) and (2), much prior to coming into force of Chapter XA? Whether in law Chapter XA is retrospective in operation and applicable to the facts of the case?

b) Whether in law, the suit is bad for non-joinder State Government is neither a necessary nor a property party at all to the suit on the facts of the case on the very pleadings as it is for the plaintiff Municipality to enforce the provisions of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, excluding Chapter XA?

c) Whether the courts below erred in law and misdirected themselves in their construction Chapter XA of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,1920 and holding that their jurisdiction is excluded in entertaining the suit instituted by the Municipality in seeking reliefs in respect of illegal constructions put up prior to introduction of Chapter XA?

d) Whether in law, the defendant is entitled to sustain its unauthorised construction, when admittedly, the building was constructed in flagrant violation of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Building Rules, 1973, Tamil Nadu Hilly Areas Special Building Rules, 1981, Town and Country Planning Act and Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920?"

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the Act 58 of 1992 was passed in the year 1982 and Chapter XA was introduced into the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, the suit was filed earlier to the passing of the Act 58 of 1992 in respect of the violation committed as per the Tamil Nadu Hilly Ar