Back
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. SUDHAKAR, J.
Apesh Construction Limited, New Delhi
Versus
The Corporation of Madurai, through its Commissioner, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai & Another
W.P.(MD)Nos.11295, 9362, 9853, 9946, 9947, 9964, 9965, 9966, 10018, 10217, 10303, 10566, 10744, 10794, 11117, 11467, 11574, 11641, 11702, 12069, and 14016 of 2012 And all connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 02-11-2012
The Court held that the building permission granted by the first respondent Corporation in exercise of the power consequent to delegation in terms of Section 91-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is deemed to be a valid exercise of a power and the permission granted is also beyond the pale of controversy. Unless the permission already granted is set aside in the manner known to law, the second respondent will have no jurisdiction to issue notice under Sections 56 and 57(4) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners had obtained building permission from the first respondent - Madurai Municipal Corporation. The second respondent - Madurai Local Planning Authority, issued notices to the petitioners stating that the petitioners' buildings were unapproved and that action would be taken under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, by way of sealing and demolishing the buildings. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the notices.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the building permission granted by the first respondent Corporation in exercise of the power consequent to delegation in terms of Section 91-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is deemed to be a valid exercise of a power and the permission granted is also beyond the pale of controversy. Unless the permission already granted is set aside in the manner known to law, the second respondent will have no jurisdiction to issue notice under Sections 56 and 57(4) of the Act.
Issues: ['Whether the petitioner and others have made an application under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 read with Section 272 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act?', 'Whether the petitioners have obtained the building permission from the competent Authority?', 'Whether the building in question is an illegal construction without proper Planning Permission and consequently noticed for locking and sealing?', 'Is the building in question constructed in the Controlled Industrial Zone contrary to the approved Master Plan and contrary to 1973 Building Rules?', 'Whether the notice is valid in law and whether the authority has the jurisdiction to issue the notice under challenge?']
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the building permission granted by the first respondent Corporation in exercise of the power consequent to delegation in terms of Section 91-A(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is deemed to be a valid exercise of a power and the permission granted is also beyond the pale of controversy. Unless the permission already granted is set aside in the manner known to law, the second respondent will have no jurisdiction to issue notice under Sections 56 and 57(4) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned proceedings in all the writ petitions.
1. These batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the notice issued by the second respondent - Madurai Local Planning Authority, issued under Sections 56, 57, 85 read with Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
2. The impugned notices in all these cases, are almost the same. By consent all the writ petitions have been taken up together for disposal.
3. The Member Secretary of the Madurai Local Planning Authority has issued the notices stating that the petitioners' buildings under construction or that have been completely constructed are unapproved. The construction has been put up without obtaining the approval as per Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioners were called upon to remove the buildings and restore the properties to the old position within 30 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which action will be taken under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, by way of sealing and demolishing the buildings. In such circumstances, these batch of writ petitions have been filed.
4. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, the facts in the case of W.P(MD)No.11295 of 2012 are dealt with in extenso and insofar as the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9362, 9853, 9946, 9964, 9965, 9966, 10018, 10217, 10303, 10566, 10794, 11117, 11641, 11702, 11467, 12069 and 14016 of 2012 are concerned, the tabulated column which are set out hereunder, as furnished by the respective petitioner, would reveal the facts which are almost identical in nature.
5. Apesh Constructions Limited - the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11295 of 2012, became the owner of the property and they wanted to develop the same as a multi-storeyed residential building. Therefore, they submitted an application to the first respondent - Madurai Municipal Corporation.
6. The brief description of the property as set out in the chart and payment made to the authority for grant of building permission is as follows:
W.P(MD)No.11295 of 2012:
Ward No.2 at Door No.2B, Kothanda-raman Mills Road, Mahalipatti, Madurai - 625 001.
W.P(MD)No.9362 of 2012:
W.P.No. Name of the petitioner Description of property in dispute Date of Application and its No. for approval No. & Date of approval by Corporation Date of approval by L.P.A. Amount paid to Corporation Build i ngDetails Date of impugned order and contents
9362/12 Dr.Barath Kumar Sr.No.597/2, 597/1C, 5, 7/1D 14.06.2010NE5/8693/2010 16.07.2010No.302/1016.07.2010 -07.07.2010Rs.19,500/ G+5 06.07.2012Na.Ka.No.859/12 MATHI3UnauthorizedBuilding
W.P(MD)No.9853 of 2012:
W.P. No. Name of the petitioner Description of property in dispute Date of Application and its No. for approval No. & Date of approval by Corporation Date of approval by L.P.A. Amount paid to Corporation Amount paid to L.P.A. No. of floors sanctioned No. of floors cons-tructed Date of impugned order and contents
9853/12 P.Kayal-vizhi SF.No.1399 & 1400A.V.Bridge,Alwarpuram,Madurai. No.NE1/ 03888/0906.08.2008 No.214/200925.04.2009 25.04.09 Rs.17,29,538/- Rs.2,82,580/- 11 6 06.07.2012Notice for demolition u/s 56, 57 and 85 of T&CP Act.
W.P(MD)No.9946 of 2012:
W.P.No. Name of the petitioner Description of property in dispute Date of Application and its No. for approval No. & Date of approval by Corporation Date of approval by L.P.A. Amount paid to Corporation Building Details Operational Date of impugned order and contents
9946/12 Daniel Thangaraj Sr.No.135/1 A, 135/6 08.07.2010NE7/09984/2010 19.07.2010No.323/10 19.07.10 Rs.18,400/- G+5 Head Room Fully functioned 04.07.2012Na.Ka.No.805/12 /MATHI3Unauthorized Building
W.P(MD)Nos.10566, 9964, 9965 and 11702 of 2012:
W.P. No. Name of the petitioner Description of property in dispute Date of Application and its No. for approval No. & Date of approval by Corporation Date of approval by L.P.A. Amount paid to Corporation Amount paid to L.P.A. No. of floors sanctio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
