The central legal point established is the right of the petitioner to seek remedy under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the authority's obligation to defer further proceedings until the disposal of the special revision petition.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Mr. A. Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf on behalf of the sole respondent.

3. The deponent of the affidavit is the wife of the petitioner and she is the Power of Attorney of the petitioner namely R. Kalyaraman. It is averred in the affidavit that her husband, the petitioner herein is working in abroad and he became the owner of the property bearing Municipal Door No.198/5, F-Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai, with a plinth area of 2,620 sq.ft. together with an undivided share area of 1,229 sq.ft. through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5177 of 2004 dated 15.12.2004 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar. The petitioner would further aver that she herself, her husband and her children continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the said superstructure. It is further averred by the petitioner that originally the land in which the superstructure has been put up belonged to her father-in-law namely Mr. L. Ramaswamy and he had entered into an agreement during the year 2002 with one R. Ganesh, S/o. N. Rajagopalan, who is the proprietor of M/s. Sugan Builders to develop the said property and thereafter, a portion of the developed property was settled in favour of her husband, vide settlement deed bearing Doc.No.5177 of 2004 dated 15.12.2004. The petitioner would further claim that her father-in-law has appointed the said Ganesh to carry out all the construction works including obtaining planning permission and co-ordinating with the respondent-Authority for development of the property. Her father-in-law was stated to have died on 04.10.2016.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that to her shock and surprise, she received the impugned notice dated 09.10.2017 from the respondent and the said notice was issued to all the occupants of the said premises, calling upon them to de-occupy from the premises and on enquiry, it came to know that the builder namely R. Ganesh has filed W.P.No.25427 of 2003, praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the first respondent therein/CMDA dated 22.08.2003 and to further direct the said authority to accord planning permission pursuant to the application dated 05.09.2003 and vide order dated 13.08.2017, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and it has also been observed by the learned Single Judge in the said order that “if any construction is made in violation of the planning permission, the first respondent/CMDA is directed to demolish the building and submit a report to the Registrar General of this Court within fifteen days and thereafter, shall produce the compliance report before the learned Judge within a week on furnishing the report, and if no action has been taken by the officials of the respondents in this case, departmental action has to be initiated against them and punishment has to be imposed”.

5. Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by the learned counsel Ms. Kritika Kamal, would submit that the builder/developer on an earlier occasion had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 25427 of 2003, challenging the notice of the first respondent/CMDA dated 22.08.2003 and with a consequential direction to the CMDA, in pursuant to his application dated 05.09.2003, and upon request made by the builder/writ petitioner therein, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 18.07.2017, and admittedly, the petitioner in the present case is one of the occupants and he having not been arrayed as a party in W.P.No.25427 of 2003, he was not aware of the filing of the earlier writ petition filed by the builder, as well as the order of withdrawal in the said writ petition. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the Single Bench of this Court has permitted the petitioner therein to wi