HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
C. Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 8876 of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 9036 of 2023
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Building Permit - Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 80-A - 28.04.2022, 28.12.2022 - The court directed the petitioner to rectify the defects within a specified time frame, failing which the respondents were permitted to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the revised application within a time frame fixed by the Court. The petitioner had constructed a building with deviations from the approved plan and had been granted time on two occasions to rectify the defects.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had not rectified the defects within the specified time frames granted by the Court and was approaching the Court in the last moment with an intention to delay the action taken by the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's failure to rectify the defects within the specified time frames and the repeated approach to the Court to delay the action taken by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court directed the petitioner to rectify the defects within a specified time frame and emphasized that if the petitioner failed to do so, the respondents were permitted to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to rectify the defects within a specified time frame and file a revised application. The respondents were directed to consider the revised application and pass orders. The matter was scheduled for reporting compliance on 24.04.2023.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Second respondent to consider and dispose of the revised Application Receipt No.2022-23/ON/1846818 in PPA/WDCN06/01705/2023 dated 24.02.2023 submitted by the Petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.)
V.M. Velumani, J.
1. The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the revised Application Receipt No.2022-23/ON/1846818 in PPA/WDCN06/01705/2023, dated 24.02.2023, submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the 1st respondent and Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for respondents 2 to 4, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire materials on record.
4. According to petitioner, he is the owner of the property bearing Door No.309, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, 18th street, Sembium, Peravallur, Chennai – 600 011. The petitioner after obtaining permission for demolition and re-construction, obtained building permit dated 05.08.2016, for construction of ground and first floor. According to petitioner, the contractor put up construction with some minor deviations. In view of the same, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 22.01.2019, calling for Approved Plan and thereafter issued Locking and Sealing notice dated 09.02.2019. The petitioner filed revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, challenging the Locking and Sealing notice dated 09.02.2019 before the 1st respondent. The petitioner also filed review petition. Since, no order was passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10385 of 2022 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court on 28.04.2022, passed the following order:
“4. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 have jointly stated that the petitioner''s Review application filed is not maintainable and there is no provision permitting the petitioner to file a Review Application since the Special Revision filed by him under Section 80-A of the Act was rejected by the 1st respondent long time ago. However, if the petitioner comes with an undertaking that he would rectify the defects and thereafter, also seek for fresh planning permission, they will not stand in the way.
5. Recording the said joint submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 to 7, we hereby direct the respondents 4 to 7 to de-seal the building of the petitioner within a period of one week and the petitioner as prayed before us is permitted to rectify the defects as per the approved plan within a period of four months from the date of de-sealing of the building. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to rectify the defects as per the approved plan, within a period of 4 months, the respondents 4 to 7 shall proceed further in accordance with law for re-sealing the building-in-question.
6. With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
4(a). The petitioner did not rectify the defects within four months time limit granted by this Court and also even after another four months. The petitioner again filed W.P.No.35063 of 2022 for a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to forbear them from in any way interfering with the petitioner''s building at No.309, Thiruvika Nagar, 18th Street, Sembium, Chennai - 600 011 particularly by way of locking and sealing pending final
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to direct the petitioner to rectify the defects within a specified time frame and permit the respondents to take appropriate ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for expeditious disposal of revision applications under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the res....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of planning authorities to process pending applications under Section 113C and refrain from coercive action until the disposal of ....
Expeditious disposal of appeals under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the restraint of coercive steps against the petitioner.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the pending appeal and maintaining status quo until a decision is made.
The need for expeditious disposal of statutory appeals and the restraint on coercive steps by respondents pending disposal of the appeal.
Court granted time extension for building regularization plan submission due to medical reasons, directing de-sealing pending compliance.
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.