IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Venugopal, Pongiappan, JJ.
Petitioner
Versus
Respondent
W.P. No. 30697 of 2016 & W.M.P. No. 26598 of 2016
Decided On : 28-11-2018
Planning Permission - Unauthorised Construction - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's brother filed a petition for directing the authorities to consider a representation and take necessary action. The court directed both parties to appear before the Zonal Officer for an enquiry, and the petition was disposed of with a direction to maintain status quo.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Zonal Officer to inspect the property and submit a comprehensive report to ascertain whether the construction carried out by the Fifth Respondent was unauthorized.
Issues: Unauthorized construction, compliance with planning permission, and the authority's duty to take action under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Zonal Officer to inspect the property and determine the unauthorized nature of the construction, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Final Decision: The matter was adjourned for the Zonal Officer to submit the inspection report, and the Fifth Respondent was given the opportunity to file a change of Vakalat by his Counsel on record.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. At this stage, it is represented on behalf of the Fifth Respondent that the Learned Counsel for the Fifth Respondent had been appointed as an Additional Advocate General of this Court. Hence, on his behalf, time is prayed for to engage a different Counsel and to file counter affidavit.
2. Be that as it may. A mere glance of the counter affidavit filed by the Zonal Officer, Zone-13 of the First Respondent/Corporation of Chennai, indicates that the Fifth Respondent had obtained planning permission dated 25.04.2011 and he had commenced the additional construction without obtaining planning permission from the competent authority. Hence, action against the unauthorised construction was initiated and that the construction was stopped.
3. It transpires that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner's brother one N.Kasi Viswanathan filed W.P.No.30953 of 2016 praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 4 therein to consider the representation dated 30.05.2016 and take necessary action within a time to be specified by this Court. In fact, this Court, on 07.09.2016, had passed the following order:
"4. ... Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court hereby directs that the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent shall appear before the Zonal Officer concerned on 15th of this month, who shall conduct an enquiry by hearing the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent and submit his report to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai immediately, who, in return, shall take a decision, on merits and in accordance with law, by the end of this month. Status quo shall be maintained by the parties till then. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. .."
4. In view of the categorical admission made on behalf of the First Respondent/Greater Chennai Corporation, through its Zonal Officer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation to the effect that if any unauthorised construction is carried out by the Fifth Respondent, further action against him would be taken in terms of the ingredients of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, this Court, to prevent the aberration of justice and in furtherance of the substantial cause of justice, directs the Zonal Officer, Zone-13 of the First Respondent/Greater Chennai Corporation, having office at Dr.Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai-600020, to inspect the petition mentioned property and to submit his report in a complete and comprehensive manner, after ascertaining as to whether the construction carried out by the Fifth Respondent is an unauthorised one or otherwise.
5. For filing of the said report by the Zonal Officer, Zone-13, Greater Chennai Corporation, the matter is adjourned to 12.12.2018.
6. In the meanwhile, it is open to the Fifth Respondent to take necessary steps to file change of Vakalat by his Counsel on record.
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.