The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adherence to approved construction plans and the legal implications of deviation from such plans under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

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 1 & 2 herein to forthwith remove the unauthorised construction put up by the respondents 4 and 5 in old door No.36, New No.51, Gandhi Road, Jagannathan Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106 comprised in Old Survey Nos. 215/2, 222/1, T.S. No. 58/1 and 59, Block No.7 of Arumbakkam Village.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition for a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to forthwith remove the unauthorised construction put up by the respondents 4 & 5 in old door No.36, New No.51, Gandhi Road, Jagannathan Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106 comprised in Old Survey Nos.215/2, 222/1, T.S. Nos.58/1 and 59, Block No.7 of Arumbakkam Village.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and 3rdrespondent and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 and perused the entire materials on record.

3. According to the petitioner, she is owner of the property in S.No.223/1 (New T.S.No.60/1) bearing Door No.44-B, Gandhi Road, Jagannathan Nagar, Arumbakkam, Chennai, measuring 2 grounds 12 sq.ft. Her neighbour one N.Yogalakshmi, wife of a retired Police Officer encroached the petitioner''s property and put up construction. The petitioner filed O.S.No.8989 of 1993 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the said suit was decreed granting interim injunction restraining the said Yogalakshmi. At the instigation of the said Yogalakshmi, the respondents 4 & 5 filed O.S.No.10391 of 2010 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for injunction against the petitioner and her son and the said suit is pending.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner obtained information under RTI Act that respondents 4 & 5 obtained building permission for construction of ground and first floors, but they have put up four floors. In this regard, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents 1 to 3. The 3rd respondent by communication dated 09.01.2012 directed the respondents 1 & 2 to take action against the respondents 4 & 5 as per the delegated power. The respondents 1 & 2 issued notice, but did not take any further action. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition for the above stated relief.

5. The 2ndrespondent filed counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that on receipt of complaint given by the petitioner, the Assistant Executive Engineer Assistant Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation inspected the property on 14.03.2018 and issued notice dated 14.03.2018 to the 4th respondent under Sections 56 & 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act calling for approved plan. On receipt of said notice, the 4th respondent submitted approved plan and building approval dated 11.02.2009 and stated that they have completed the construction in the year 2010. On scrutinising the approved plan, the 2nd respondent found that 4th respondent has constructed ground & first floors in deviation from the approved plan and also put up second floor unauthorisedly measuring 79.80 sq.mtr. and also head room measuring 15.60 sq.mtr. Again the 2nd respondent issued lock & seal notice dated 26.07.2018 under Sections 56 & 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

6. The respondents 4 & 5 filed counter affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 submitted that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and vendor of the respondents 4 & 5. The 4th respondent obtained approval for construction of ground & first floors and in view of deviation pointed out by the respondents 1 & 2, the 4threspondent submitted the revised plan application under Section 149 of the Ta