The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which provides finality to decisions or orders of the authorities under the Act and prohibits Civil Courts from granting injunctions against notices served by the planning authority.

1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, which figured as the defendant before the trial Court in O.S.No.1895 of 1995, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The respondent herein is one of the co-owners of the suit property, namely the property bearing Door No.756, Anna Salai, Chennai. The respondent along with the other co-owners got planning permission for constructing a building with three floors. Subsequently, building permit for putting the 4th floor was sought for, but the same was declined. As against the order declining permission to put up the fourth floor, an appeal came to be preferred, as per the plaint averments, under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. In the meantime, without permission, the additional floors had also been constructed.

2. The appellant (CMDA) issued a notice dated 13.06.1989 directing the owners of the property to demolish the unauthorized construction. As against the said notice, the land owners filed a suit in O.S.No.6537 of 1989 for an injunction not to take further action based on the said notice directing demolition and removal of unauthorized construction. However, the plaintiff did not pursue the remedy sought for in the said suit and allowed it to be dismissed. On the other hand, the respondent herein/plaintiff approached CMDA authorities for regularisation of the unauthorized construction. Meanwhile, a notice under Section 56 (2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 dated 27.02.1995 came to be served on 13.03.1995 on the tenants informing them to vacate the premises within seven days as the building was going to be demolished. Challenging the said notice and praying for a decree declaring the said notice issued by the appellant/defendant under Letter No.ES4/4215/95 dated 27.02.1995 was null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein, its officials or anybody acting under the appellant/defendant from in anyway proceeding with the said impugned notice dated 27.02.1995, the present suit O.S.No. 1895 of 1995 came to be filed.

3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant contending that the suit was barred by a statutory provision, namely Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and that the said Act also provided a bar for granting any injunction against the exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the authorities under the Act. On merits, it was contended that the approved plan contained only the basement floor, ground floor plus three flours and without obtaining planning permission, 4th and 5th floors came to be constructed together with a machine room in the 6th floor; that the permission sought for to construct the 4th and 5th floors had been refused under Letter No.C/4825/83 dated 21.04.1988 and that therefore CMDA had to take steps for the removal of the unauthorized construction for which alone the impugned notice came to be issued.

4. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction?

2) To what other relief?

5. In the trial that was conducted before the trial Court, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs, whereas DW1 alone was examined without producing any document on the side of the defendant.

6. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge answered the issues in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for without costs by his judgment and decree dated 03.09.1998. The appeal preferred by the CMDA, namely the appellant herein before the lower appellate Court, namely Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Chennai in A.S.No.336 of 2002 was dismissed by its judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003 confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. As against the said decree of the Appellate Court, viz., learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court