The main legal point established in the judgment is that constructions in a No Development Zone, without proper Planning Permission, are illegal and subject to demolition.

JUDGMENT :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

(Prayer: Petitioners have filed these Writ Miscellaneous Petitions to clarify the common order, dated 14.08.2020, passed in W.P. Nos. 2459 of 2013, 4566 of 2013, 7834 of 2013 & 35319 of 2012, on the following issue)

1. Whether the petitioners have Planning Permission for putting up constructions in the property in question and could any order be passed against them on a Public Interest Litigation, when they are consciously and deliberately not made as parties in the Writ Petition ?

2. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that this Court was pleased to pass the common order, dated 14.08.2020, dismissing the four Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners, and disposing of the Public Interest Litigation filed in W.P.No.16083 of 2018, whereby ordering demolition of the constructions/structures put up by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are using the said property for the purpose of running an Ayurvedic Centre and, in one of the properties, privileged children are living, as the schools of those children are nearby, and the intention was not to use the said properties for residential purpose. He would also submit that W.P.No.16083 of 2018 was filed as a Public Interest Litigation, wherein, none of the petitioners was impleaded as a party and, in the absence of the petitioners having been impleaded as parties, no order can be passed in the said Writ Petition to demolish the structures put up by the petitioners. Further, he would argue, that, by virtue of the said order, the petitioners are deprived of the statutory remedy of appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioners have Planning Permission from Muttukadu Panchayat and when the Planning Permission was issued to construct houses, the Court cannot find any illegality therein. At that point of time, sea water was 150 metres away from the plots of the petitioners and it was also a Development Zone and, therefore, Muttukadu Panchayat had granted Planning Permission. Accordingly, he seeks for clarification of the order of this Court, dated 18.04.2020, by filing these Writ Miscellaneous Petitions.

4. Conversely, Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents-State, has submitted that constructions were made in No Development Zone-I; as per CRZ-III Notification, the petitioners were not entitled to put up any constructions except to the extent as provided in the said Notification; the residential units of the petitioners were not falling within the exempted category of CRZ-III Notification; the Notification was issued in the year 2001; the plots were 150 metres away from sea water; since the said plots were within 200 metres from sea water, the constructions made thereon were totally illegal and the permission granted by Muttukadu Panchayat was contrary to the proceedings of the respondents, dated 14.06.2010.

5. Mr.A.Yogeshwaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16083 of 2018, which is a Public Interest Litigation, has submitted that the buildings were constructed by the petitioners in between the backwater and the sea water; no construction can be allowed to be put up within 200 metres from sea water as per CRZ-III Notification; the plots of the petitioners come under the purview of No Development Zone-I; no construction is permitted in NDZ-I; the respondent also has not accorded any layout approval for the plots of the petitioners; Muttukadu Panchayat was permitted to grant building permission only for the approved layouts; in the present case, permission was granted for an unapproved layout and, therefore, the permission itself was illegal. He would also contend that as per the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971, the respondent is empowered to demolish the constructions after issuing due notice; though permission was initially granted, the same was subsequently found illegal and, therefore, there i