Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
D.S. Mani alias D. Subramani - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 8678 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 9511 & 12126 of 2017
Decided On : 09-11-2018
For the Petitioner:R. Udayakumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:V.C. Selvasekaran, S.N. Parthasarathy, Government Advocate, P.R. Dilip Kumar, N. Ramesh, R7, M/s. Vincent & Vincent Christopher Kishore, S. Annamalai, Advocates
Compliance with the Town and Country Planning Act and the authorities' actions under the Act were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Sections 56, 57, 85 - The court addressed a property dispute where the petitioner sought action to stop illegal construction on a property. The court found that the authorities had already taken action in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought action to stop illegal construction on a property and directed the respondents to consider his representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities had already taken action in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: Illegal construction, action sought by the petitioner, compliance with Town and Country Planning Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the authorities had addressed the petitioner's grievance and nothing further remained for adjudication.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were allowed to take further lawful action in accordance with the law.
M. Venugopal, JJ.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Petitioner in his representation/complaint dated 13.01.2017 addressed to the 6th Respondent/Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, War-64 Office, Anjugam Nagar, 4th Street, Kolathur, Chennai had stated that the property bearing No.15/29, 1st Street, Haridass Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099, a vacant house site admeasuring about 4788 sq.ft. originally belonged to one Jayavel [7th Respondent – since deceased and his Legal Representative has been substituted as per order dated 28.06.2018 in W.M.P.No.2456 of 2018] and his wife Pappammal, they having jointly purchased the same by means of a registered Sale Deed. During their life time, they had constructed a house and lived therein and the said Pappammal died leaving behind a Will bequeathing her one half undivided share of right in the schedule property in question in the name of his brother's son Sridhar (Petitioner's son) and appointed the Petitioner as the Executor under the Will etc.
3. Apart from that, the complaint of the Petitioner dated 13.01.2017 proceeds to point out that when the existence of Will was brought to the notice of the 7th Respondent (later died), he ignored the Will and claimed absolute ownership over the property. It appears that a pre-litigation notice was sent to one A.N. Lokesh S/o. A.S. Nagaiah, No.1A, Lakshmi Nagar 1st Street, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011 and to the 7th Respondent and they failed to adhere to the notice after receiving the same. In fact, they ventured upon an illegal construction which resulted in filing of the suit in O.S.No.4049 of 2016 on the file of the Learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Furthermore, an Appeal was preferred and another original suit were filed by the respective parties.
4. In pith and substance, the complaint of the Petitioner dated 13.01.2017 addressed to the 6th Respondent/Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, Coimbatore makes a pertinent mention about the illegal construction being carried on at a lightening speed and a police complaint was lodged, but no action was initiated. Hence, the Petitioner was perforced to address the complaint dated 13.01.2017 to the 6th Respondent whereby and where under a request was made to take his complaint on file and initiate appropriate action to stop illegal construction being carried out any further.
5. On behalf of the 5th Respondent, it is represented that on receipt of complaint from the Petitioner, the site in issue was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit – 15, Zone – VI and the Assistant Engineer, Division – 64, Unit – 15, Zone – VI on 30.01.2017 and after due inspection, a notice under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 dated 30.01.2017 was issued to the 7th Respondent.
6. It is further represented on behalf of the 5th Respondent that the 7th Respondent (during his life time) furnished two numbers of sanctioned plan vide Planing Permit PPA/D6/3039/2016 & Building Approval vide BANo.D6/3259/2016 and Planning Permit PPA/D6/3041/2016 & Building Approval vide BANo.3260/2016 for the premises at Door No.15/29, Haridoss Nagar, First Cross Street, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099. On perusal of the sanctioned plan, it came to light that the 7th Respondent had put up the said building by deviating the approved plan and since the 7th Respondent during his life time had failed to comply with the spirit and tenor of the notice issued, further action was initiated by issuing Lock and Sealing and Demolition notice dated 24.03.2017.
7. It is to be noted that pending Writ Petition, the 7th Respondent had expired and his Legal Representative was duly substituted as per order passed by this Court in W.M.P.No.2456 of 2017 dated 28.06.2018 and he was brought on record.
8. In this connection, the Learned Counsel, who appears for the Legal Representative of the 7th Respondent, informs this Court that the Appeal preferred by the 7th Responden
