Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, N. SESHASAYEE, JJ.
A. Marimuthu - Petitioner
Vs.
The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 12812 of 2017; WMP Nos. 13665 & 13666 of 2017
Decided On : 05-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Raghavachari
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Vijayakumar, Mr. C. Johnson, Mr. R. Arunmozhi
Headnote:
Present litigation is having a long and chequered history and repeated attempts made by petitioner to stall demolition of unauthorised construction, so far, ended in failure - It is last ditch attempt made by petitioner to save unauthorised construction from demolition. petitioner, in affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver among other things that the property situate , originally belong to Realty Limited and they earlier envisaged construction of seven Apartments and Supermarket on ground floor and obtained Planning Permission for that purpose - Thereafter, commercial construction was sought to be raised and an application was submitted for regularisation in Regularisation No. 29734 and at that point of time, one had purchased the said property and petitioner had purchased said property through a registered Sale Deed registered on file of office of Sub Registrar, petitioner also filed a review petition, challenging said order and pending disposal of same, had filed an application for stay and pendnecy of same, petitioner was issued with de-occupation notice by the 5th respondent calling upon petitioner to vacate and deliver premises within seven days from date of receipt of notice and in addition to that, once again, a lock and seal notice was also issued by 2nd respondent – Held, Honble Apex Court in decision reported in 2009 [15] SCC 705 : AIR 2010 SC 443 has observed that Executive must take stringent action to curtail menance of illegal construction - Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by this Court and High Courts, builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in municipal and other similar laws, as also master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatu - As and when courts have passed orders or officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance of laws relating to planned development of cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of illegal/unauthorized constructions, learned counsel for petitioner also made an attempt by submitting that in the light of the regularisation scheme issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.Nos.110 and 111 he may be permitted to work out his remedy - However, petitioner failed to produce any material before this Court as to the date of completion of construction and the cut-off date for regularisation prescribed as per the said Government Orders - Conduct of petitioner would also disclose that he has no regard for the Rules and Regulations and in utter violation of relevant norms and regulations, has finished construction and started using it as a commercial purpose and now, it is under lock and seal- This Court, after careful scrutiny and analysis of the entire materials is of view and opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and deserves dismissal - Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present litigation is having a long and chequered history and the repeated attempts made by the petitioner to stall the demolition of the unauthorised construction, so far, ended in failure. It is the last ditch attempt made by the petitioner to save the unauthorised construction from demolition.
3. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver among other things that the property situate at 56, 56A, Thirumalai Pillai Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017, originally belong to M/s. Bommidala Realty Limited and they earlier envisaged construction of seven Apartments and Supermarket on the ground floor and obtained Planning Permission for that purpose. Thereafter, commercial construction was sought to be raised and an application was submitted for regularisation in Regularisation No. 29734 dated 29.06.2002 and at that point of time, one Mr. Sampath had purchased the said property on 19.02.2007 and the petitioner had purchased the said property from Mr. Sampath through a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.473/2010 dated 05.03.2010 registered on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar, T. Nagar.
3.1 The petitioner would further aver that M/s. Bommidala Realty Limited has raised construction in full and sold the property and the subsequent purchaser, namely, Mr. Sampath, had made all statutory payments reflecting the nature of the property as commercial and no objection was raised and no rejection was received from the respondents with regard to the payment of statutory levies and the petitioner was also under the legitimate impression that the application for regularisation will be favourably considered. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondents 5 and 6 had issued Notice dated 31.07.2014, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the approved plan and the petitioner has submitted his response and the approved plan on 17.08.2014.
3.2 Subsequent to that, the jurisdictional Zonal Officer of the Corporation of Chennai, had also issued directions to make a road cut to effect water and sewerage connections and the usage of the building as a commercial one, has been reflected in all applications. However, the officials of the Corporation of Chennai had proceeded to issue the Lock and Seal notice dated 26.08.2015 and also threatened to demolish the property on account of the non-compliance. The petitioner, challenging the legality of the same, filed an appeal on 19.09.2015 along with an application for stay, restraining the officials of the Corporation of Chennai, from taking any precipitative action and since, neither the appeal nor the stay petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner was constrained to file WP.No.30287/2015 before this Court, praying for appropriate direction to dispose of the appeal at an early date and during the pendency of the writ petition, the Government sent a reply on 28.09.2015, stating that the appeal was not maintainable. The petitioner would further state that the 5th respondent visited the premises on 27.01.2016 and threatened to demolish the superstructure and fearing coercive action, the petitioner filed WP.No.3822/2016 and went for amendment of prayer to quash the Letter dated 28.09.2015 and pendency of the writ petition, de-occupation notice was issued on 07.01.2016 and challenging the said notice, once again the petitioner filed an appeal on 20.02.2016. The Appellate Authority also indicated that the appeal will be heard and decided on merits and accordingly, the hearing was fixed on 29.02.2016 and on that day, two Advocates, claiming to represent the interested parties, raised objections.
3.3 The petitioner would further aver that the 1st respondent, after considering the materials, has allowed the appeal on technical grounds and set asid
