Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HULUVADI G. RAMESH & S. VAIDYANATHAN, JJ.
J. Julie Sangetta – Petitioner
Versus
Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 28511, 37822, 38432 of 2015 & 23766, 33481 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2015 & 1 of 2013
Decided On : 07-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. David Tyagaraj.
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Raja Shrinivas and Mr. A. Nagarajan.
The court emphasized the need for dynamic action to curb violations and encroachments, and outlined the details that authorities can call for from violators to address such issues.
Headnote:
Locking and Sealing - Unauthorized Construction - Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority - [Chennai Building Act, 1984 - Section 56(1), Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 14(1)] - The court directed the authority to issue a fresh notice to the real owners indicating the alleged violation in respect of the construction of the building and to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction within a specified period. The court emphasized the need for dynamic action to curb violations and encroachments, and outlined the details that authorities can call for from violators to address such issues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a locking and sealing notice issued by the Corporation of Chennai regarding unauthorized construction at a property. The petitioners claimed ownership of the property and argued that the notice was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were deviations in the construction of the property and directed the authority to issue a fresh notice to the real owners to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction within a specified period. The court closed all related writ petitions, stating that the relief sought had become infructuous due to the order in the main petition.
Issues: Ownership of the property, unauthorized construction, violation of natural justice, and the authority's duty to address violations and encroachments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for dynamic action to curb violations and encroachments, and outlined the details that authorities can call for from violators to address such issues. It held that the authority should issue a fresh notice to the real owners to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction within a specified period.
Final Decision: The court directed the authority to issue a fresh notice to the real owners indicating the alleged violation in respect of the construction of the building and to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction within a specified period. All related writ petitions were closed.
1. Challenging the locking and sealing notice dated 19.10.2015 issued by the Corporation of Chennai, in respect of the building at Door No. 89/50, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai, the petitioners have come forward with the writ petition in W.P. No. 38432 of 2015.
2. The relief sought for in other writ petitions is to direct the authority concerned to take necessary action in respect of the unauthorised deviated construction at Door No. 89/50, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai, as per the instructions of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in his letter Nos. ES2/11440/2010 dated 20.02.2012 and 26.04.2012.
3. The case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 38432 of 2015 is that their father K. Joseph was the absolute owner of the property situated at No. 89/50, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016, which was conveyed to him by one Subba Reddy Charities represented by its Managing Trustee through O.P. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1990, pursuant to a compromise entered into between the parties before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee dated 02.03.1990. Thereafter, the eighth respondent in W.P. No. 38432 of 2015, who is representing the petitioner in other four writ petitions, had filed a suit in O.S. No. 686 of 1991 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, against the petitioners' father, seeking to declare the said property as null and void. Subsequently, in view of a compromise entered into between the parties, the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners' father. It is the further case of the petitioners that after obtaining prior permission in Approval No. 154/93 dated 27.05.1993, their father constructed the ground floor in the property in question. Thereafter, he constructed the first floor and made an application dated 28.06.2002 to the authority concerned, seeking regularization of the same, to which, he received no reply. In the year 2005, he put up a temporary structure with tin sheet at second floor. Thereafter, he settled the property in favour of the petitioners. While so, the Corporation authorities has issued a notice dated 19.10.2015 to the petitioners' father, stating that the first and second floors constructed in the property in question are unauthorized constructions and calling upon him to restore the building to its original condition, failing which, appropriate action would be taken as per law. Challenging the same, W.P. No. 38432 of 2015 came to be filed.
4. We have heard all the parties and also perused the materials placed before us.
5. The facts made available herein would reveal that the petitioners in W.P. No. 38432 of 2015 are the children of one K. Joseph/one of the respondents in W.P. Nos. 28511 and 37822 of 2015 filed by Subba Reddy Charities rep. by its Managing Trustee. The subject matter of the property in all the writ petitions is situated at No. 89/50, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016. The petitioners in W.P. No. 38432 of 2015 are the owners of the said property and they have been residing in the building constructed therein.
6. Admittedly, there are deviations in the construction of first and second floors of the property in question, for which, notice was issued to the original owner K. Joseph. The construction of the second floor, according to the petitioners in W.P. No. 38432 of 2015, is only a temporary structure, whereas according to the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, is a permanent structure and is an unauthorised construction, for which, notice has been issued, as per law. At this juncture, it is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP. No. 38432 of 2015 that no notice was served on the real owners of the property in question, as such, the locking & sealing and demolition of the building, if any, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. The petitioner cannot on technical grounds contend that the owner has not received the notice and the present petitioner is a lawful owner. Whoever is the owner of the property,
