The court emphasized the obligation of the 2nd respondent to take action against unauthorised construction under the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for constructing the unauthorised building in the premises situated in S.F.No.716/10/2A, Door No.9, Jeevanantham 4th street, Kumaran Nagar, Avadi, Chennai-600 071 in compliance of the order made by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.10538/2015/F1, dated 03.11.2015 in accordance with law within the time limit fixed by this Court.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition for a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to take appropriate action against the 3rdrespondent for constructing the unauthorised building in the premises in compliance of the order made by the 2nd respondent dated 03.11.2015 in accordance with law within the time limit fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent and perused the entire materials on record.

3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the house bearing No.11, Jeevanantham 4th street, Kumaran Nagar, Avadi, Chennai. The 3rd respondent is the owner of ground + first floors building situate in S.F.No.716/10/2A, Door No.9, Jeevanantham 4th street, Kumaran Nagar, Avadi, Chennai. The 3rd respondent has put up construction in her property. At the time of construction, the 3rd respondent damaged the building of the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner gave a representation to the 1 st respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent. The 1 st respondent referred the representation of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent as per the delegated powers given to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued notice dated 26.12.2014 under Section 216(1) & (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920 to the 3 rd respondent marking copy to the petitioner. However, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action against the 3rdrespondent. Subsequent to the direction of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent issued demolition order against the 3rd respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the notice dated 26.12.2014, the 2 nd respondent did not take any follow up action. Hence, the petitioner has sent representation to the 1st respondent. For the third time, the 1st respondent by the proceedings dated 24.04.2017 directed the 2nd respondent to take action against the 3rdrespondent as per the delegated powers. The 2nd respondent did not take any action. Again the petitioner sent a representation to the 2nd respondent and has come out with the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that 3rd respondent has not obtained any permission from the 2nd respondent or 1st respondent for construction. The construction put up by the 3rd respondent is unauthorised one. There is a dispute between the petitioner and 3rd respondent. On receiving complaint from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued notice under Section 216(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920 and due to pendency of the civil suits, the 2nd respondent did not take further action and prayed for passing suitable orders.

6. The 3rd respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent has made averments with regard to the dispute between the petitioner & 3rd respondent and civil suits in O.S.Nos.406 & 1009 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that 3rd respondent has obtained approval and constructed the building and there is no unauthorised construction put up by her.

8. From the above rival submissions and materials on record, it is seen that on the representation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent instr