BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
N. Sankar – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary (Town and Country Planning) Tamil Nadu Government, O/o. Director of Town and Country Planning, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 16120 of 2023 & W.M.P.(MD) No. 13506 of 2023
Decided On : 30-08-2023
Lock and Seal - Town and Country Planning Act, Madurai Municipal Corporation Act - 56, 57, 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - The court discussed the violation of construction, principles of natural justice, and the legal provisions related to illegal and unauthorized constructions. The court emphasized the need for strict enforcement of building regulations and the removal of illegal constructions. The judgment highlighted the importance of planned development and the duty of planning bodies to ensure compliance with building regulations. The court also emphasized the need for strict action against violators and the importance of removing encroachments and illegal constructions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner constructed a building in violation of the sanctioned plan and was issued a notice to lock and seal the building. The petitioner sought to quash the notice and remove the lock and seal after rectifying the deviations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the building was constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan, with a significant deviation from the approved area. The court emphasized the need for strict enforcement of building regulations and the removal of illegal constructions.
Issues: Violation of construction, principles of natural justice, rectifiability of deviations, and the legality of the lock and seal notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the violation of construction was established, and there was no deviation from the sanctioned plan. The court emphasized the need for strict enforcement of building regulations and the removal of illegal constructions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs on the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of removing the violated portions and the need for strict action against violators.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records, pertaining to the impugned order proceedings (notice) vide Na.Ka.No.MA2U3/000505/2023 dated .05.2023 and quash the same as not valid and direct the respondents to remove the lock and seal by getting the revised plan and other formalities contemplated under Town and Country Planning Act and Madurai Municipal Corporation Act, which are feasible and possible under the said Act.)
S. Vaidyanathan, J.
"The petitioner, taking advantage of the Court proceedings moving at snail''s pace has audacity to construct 30,373.886 sq.ft. in excess in utter violation of the sanctioned plan and thereafter pulls this Court to his rescue so as to make law abiding citizens a laughing stock."
This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings (notice) vide Na.Ka.No.MA2U3/000505/2023 dated .05.2023, in and by which, notice was issued to the petitioner to lock and seal the building on the ground that the building was constructed without any approval and there was deviation of construction. A direction was also sought for removal of the lock and seal after getting revised plan and completion of other formalities under the relevant Act.
2. Mr.M.Linga Durai, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for R1, R3 and R4 and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned counsel for R2. By consent, final orders are passed in this Writ Petition at the admission stage. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that he had jointly purchased a vacant site of 10896.5 sq.ft. along with his brother one Subramanian comprised in S.No.51/10 and 51/11 (T.S.No.103/1B) in Ward No.66, Kochadai main road opposite to Passport Office, Kochadayan Street, Madurai by a Registered Sale Deed with in Doc.No.2735 of 2015 dated 17.07.2015. The petitioner and his brother had decided to construct a commercial building complex after preparation of a Blue Print sketch, based on which, necessary permission was granted on 23.02.2018;
3.1. It was further case of the Petitioner that as per the approval, they proceeded with the construction of the commercial complex and completed the same in the month of March, 2021. It was stated that there were certain deviations from the original approval plan, which could be rectifiable and curable, as there were no major violations. After completion of the entire construction, the 2nd Respondent had issued a notice dated 25.01.2023 vide Ma2U3/000501/2023 to stop the constructions within seven days;
3.2. It was also the case of the petitioner that subsequently, by another undated order passed in Na.Ka.No.MA2U3/000505/2023, it was stated that pursuant to the deviation of construction from the original plan, the 2nd Respondent ordered to lock and seal the building, as if there was no approval for construction. Though a request was made to unlock and deseal the building, which would cause heavy financial burden to the petitioner consequent to the loan obtained from the Karur Vysya Bank, there was no proper response for the request made to the concerned authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the petitioner''s readiness to set right the defects and to pay the penalty if any imposed, such an order of lock and seal in the garb notice came to be issued by an authority incompetent to pass the same. In the lock and seal order, there was no indication as to under whose instance, the notice under Section 296 of the Act was issued. Moreover, there was a violation of principles of natural justice, as neither the petitioner nor his brother was afforded any personal hearing before effecting such a notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the deviation was within the extent of curable one by way of filing a revised plan in terms of the Act, the construction was straightaway kept under lock
Strict enforcement of building regulations, removal of illegal constructions, and the duty of planning bodies to ensure compliance with building regulations.
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized without proper proof, and courts are mandated to enforce compliance strictly with planning laws.
Unauthorized constructions violating approved plans must be demolished; regularization is not an absolute right and must consider public interest and safety.
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
Exhaustion of alternate remedies is crucial before seeking judicial review, as original authorities are better positioned to assess factual disputes regarding unauthorized constructions.
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.