IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Satish K. Agnihotri and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ.
Mulberry Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director C. Karthikeyan
Versus
Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Coimbatore -12 and Others
Subbulakshmi Ramasamy
Versus
Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Coimbatore and Others
W.P. Nos. 30649, 33451 of 2013 W.P. No. 30649 of 2013: W.P. No. 33451 of 2013
Decided On : 9 January 2014
Illegal Construction - Town and Country Planning Act - Section 56A, 57 - The court discussed the violation of building permit, unauthorized construction, and lack of parking space. It highlighted the builder's failure to comply with building laws and the issuance of fire license without verifying the approved plan.
Fact of the Case:
The builder obtained planning permission for a 7075 sq.ft. building but constructed 22,275 sq.ft. without leaving open spaces and providing sufficient parking space. The building was sealed by the Local Planning Authority due to the violation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the builder flouted building laws and regulations, and the Local Planning Authority was correct in issuing the impugned order. The builder's actions showed a lack of regard for the law.
Issues: Violation of building permit, unauthorized construction, lack of parking space, and the issuance of fire license without verifying the approved plan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with building laws and regulations, and the need for stringent action to curb illegal constructions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Corporation was permitted to take appropriate follow-up action pursuant to the order dated 28 October 2013.
MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND MR. K.K. SASIDHARAN, JJ.
1. Introductory:
The City of Coimbatore was famous for textile industry before the bifurcation and formation of Tiruppur District. The city is now very much in news for another reason viz., mushroom growth of unauthorized buildings.
2. The writ petition filed by the developer in W.P. No. 33451/2013 is a classic example of illegal construction inasmuch as the builder who obtained planning permission for constructing 7075 sq.ft. actually constructed an area of 22,275 sq.ft., without leaving open spaces and providing sufficient parking space.
The facts:
3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 33451/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “builder”) obtained planning permission from the local planning authority, Coimbatore, to construct a building at D. No. 15/432, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. The builder, in total deviation of the sanctioned plan, constructed a commercial building without any set back or parking space and entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner in W.P. No. 30649 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “tenant”). The tenant took the building for conducting a hotel on a monthly rent of Rs. 5 lakhs, with periodical revision. The tenant undertook interior decoration work and even before opening the hotel, the building was sealed by the Local Planning Authority, Coimbatore. The order dated 28 October 2013 was initially challenged by the tenant. After hearing the arguments on the side of the tenant and the Planning Authority, we have reserved the matter for judgment on 4 December 2013. It was only thereafter, and more particularly on 10 December 2013, the builder filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 33451 of 2013.
4. The learned counsel for the builder as well as the tenant contended that it was only on account of the fire accident that occurred in a commercial complex at Coimbatore, the Local Planning Authority initiated enforcement action. The learned counsel submitted that the builder constructed only 18,000 sq.ft. The Local body assessed the property and only thereafter, the impugned proceedings were initiated.
Factual Analysis:
5. The building in question was inspected by the Planning Authority and found that as against the sanctioned area of 7075 sq.ft, the builder has constructed 22,275 sq.ft. This only made the Corporation to issue notice dated 2 November 2012 and the impugned notice dated 28 October 2013.
6. The builder has come up with a specific contention that it was only on account of the fire accident at Coimbatore in April 2013, the impugned notice was issued by the Local Planning Authority on 28 October 2013. The said submission is nothing but false in view of the notice issued by the Coimbatore Corporation on 2 November 2012.
7. The Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, inspected the building. The Corporation found that the construction was made in violation of the building permit and as such, the builder was directed to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of thirty days failing which, it was indicated that action would be taken under Section 56A and 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The builder somehow managed to keep the proceedings pending. It was only during the currency of the action taken by the Local Planning Authority, the builder entered into a lease agreement with the tenant. The tenant cannot be heard to say that they were not aware of the illegal construction made by the builder. The tenant should have verified the Completion Certificate issued by the Corporation before taking the building on lease.
8. The property tax assessment made by the Corporation would not amount to regularization of construction. The builder should be in a position to prove that the Corporation inspected the building after completion of construction and issued occupancy certificate and thereafter, assessment was made. The builder managed to keep the enforcement of proceedings pending for months together and obtained an order of ass
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.