Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3911
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
Sandy William - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 10820 of 2017 & W.M.P. No. 11756 of 2017
Decided on : 27-11-2018
For the Petitioner:K. Govindaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Magesh, C. Vediappan, M/s. C.S. Associates, Advocates.
Adherence to building regulations and planning permissions is crucial, and necessary action should be taken in accordance with the law if unauthorized construction is found.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Illegal Constructions - Town Planning Act, Building Regulations - [Town Planning Act, Building Regulations] - The court directed the Town Planning authority to inspect the site and ascertain the extent of unauthorized construction. If violations are found, necessary action should be taken in accordance with the law. Water and electricity supply to the violated portions should be disconnected until the building is brought in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The petitioner is directed to obtain a Building Completion Certificate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the authorities to take action against illegal constructions made by the respondents without planning permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Town Planning authority to inspect the site and determine the extent of unauthorized construction. If violations are found, necessary action should be taken in accordance with the law. Water and electricity supply to the violated portions should be disconnected until the building is brought in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The petitioner is directed to obtain a Building Completion Certificate.
Issues: Illegal constructions, planning permission, building regulations
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to building regulations and planning permissions. It directed the authorities to take necessary action in accordance with the law if unauthorized construction is found.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. W.M.P. is closed.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate severe action against the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and to demolish the illegal constructions made by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 which are made without obtaining planning permission in Site No.4, Marutha Nagar, Vadavalli, Thondamuthur Main Road, Coimbatore.
3. According to the Petitioner, he is a permanent resident of Coimbatore Corporation Area and is a practising Advocate. His plea is that the Coimbatore Municipality was upgraded as Municipal Corporation during the year 1981 and that the Corporation comprises of 100 Wards, and for administrative purpose, the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation is divided into five Zones, namely North, South, East, West and Central.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents 3 and 4 had constructed a commercial building contrary to the approved building plan in their property in Site No.4, Marutha Nagar, Vadavalli, Thondamuthur Main Road, Coimbatore. Hence, the petitioner made a representation before the Respondents 1 and 2, with a request to take appropriate action against the said illegal and unauthorised construction put up by the Respondents 3 and 4. Since no fruitful steps were taken by the authorities concerned, he is perforced to project the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
5. No counter affidavit is filed by the Respondents 1 and 2. However, on the side of Respondents 3 and 4, the Third Respondent has filed counter affidavit for himself and also on behalf of his wife, i.e. the Fourth Respondent. A perusal of the contents of the counter affidavit indicates that the Third Respondent had applied for permission to demolish and re-construct the building in Plot No.4, Marutha Nagar, Vadavalli, Thondamuthur Main Road, Coimbatore, before the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation and he obtained a sanctioned plan for construction of stilt, ground and first floors through Building Licence, dated 27.06.2016. In fact, he had constructed stilt and first floor and that the plastering was over in stilt and the first floor is to be plastered. At that point of time, the third respondent received a notice, dated 31.03.2017 from the Second Respondent stating that the Third Respondent had constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The Third Respondent stated that the measurement was taken behind his back.
6. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the counter, have taken a clear-cut plea that even according to the Corporation authorities, the deviation is 49.21 Sq.Mtrs., and although it is mentioned in the notice that the construction is a deviated one and it is an additional construction, but, according to the Third Respondent, the construction is not an additional construction and that it is only an extension from the original plan.
7. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the counter in paragraph 4 had emphatically mentioned that the plan was sanctioned for 3966.5 Sq.Ft. (368.5 Sq.Mtrs) for stilt, ground and first floors and 20% of the sanctioned area works out to 793.3 Sq.Ft. (73.69 Sq.Mtrs) and as per the notice, it works out to 529.6 Sq.Ft. (49.21 Sq.Mtrs) and the same is below 20%, which could be regularised by paying penalty.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 contends that the Third Respondent had submitted a representation for regularisation of the purported deviation (since it comes within the permissible deviation of 20%) and further that, he had completed the construction and the authorities have visited the premises and assessed the property tax under commercial tariff for the ground and residential tariff for the first floor.
9. The grievance of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 is that the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner at the instance of hospital and clinical professionals and further that the Third Respondent had applied for planning permission for
