Mr. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and Mr. K.K. SASIDHARAN, JJ.

Introductory:

1. Whether the assignee of a building constructed without planning permission, and in respect of which demolition notice was issued earlier after rejecting the request for regularization and confirming the same by the High Court (in a writ petition filed by the original owner) would get a fresh cause of action to revive the concluded matter, merely on account of his purchase, is the core issue that arises for our consideration in the writ petition in W.P. No. 11194/2010.

2. The petitioner purchased a commercial building with a clear knowledge that it was the subject matter of litigation on account of its construction without obtaining planning permit and succeeded to the litigation, and the attempt now is to prolong the litigation indefinitely and thereby to avoid demolition (and to enjoy the income from property) notwithstanding the fact that major part of the building, including the marriage hall, were unauthorized constructions made in violation of the building regulations.

A brief backdrop:

W.P. No. 11194 of 2010:

3. The building situated at D. No. 150, Velachery Main Road, Poondy Bazar, Selaiyur, Chennai, in S. No. 333/A/2B of Saliyur Village, was constructed by Thiru V.S.Nagarajan. The Planning Authority granted permission to construct a residential building. However, the builder converted the building into a marriage hall cum shopping complex. The builder submitted application for regularization before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “CMDA”). The CMDA, pending consideration of application for regularization, is stated to have issued a completion certificate for the purpose of obtaining electricity and sewerage connection. While so, a writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 10309/2005 at the instance of a third party for taking action against Thiru. V.S.Nagarajan, on account of the illegal construction put up by him. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the representation on merits. The application for regularization submitted by the builder was rejected by CMDA in the meantime, vide order dated 6 June 2005. The second respondent thereafter issued a demolition notice on 10 June 2005. The builder filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 23817/2005 to consider his appeal filed against the order rejecting the regularization application and to demolish the building. The appeal was rejected on merits. The builder filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 18659 of 2006. The High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Thereafter, the builder filed an appeal before the monitoring committee.

4. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner purchased the property from Thiru.V.S.Nagarajan. The petitioner, in the meantime, received a notice dated 30 April 2010 issued by the second respondent initiating enforcement action with respect to the illegal construction. The petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent indicating that the Government have already issued an ordinance, safeguarding the construction already made and as such, it was not correct to take further action for demolition. However, there was no follow up action taken by the second respondent to consider his representation. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the notice dated 30 April 2010 on the file of the second respondent, directing him to discontinue the occupation for the purpose of sealing and locking the premises.

W.P. No. 17639/2013:

5. The petitioner wanted to undertake certain repair works of the building in spite of initiating proceedings by the second respondent by notice dated 30 April 2010. According to the petitioner, he made a request to the second respondent to permit him to undertake repairs. However, the 2nd respondent was not prepared to give him permission. The petitioner is therefore before this Court.

6. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the third respondent in W.P. No. 17639/2013, filed a detailed coun