The Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to address civil disputes involving unauthorized construction without notice to affected parties; such matters must be pursued in civil courts.

ORDER :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in Order No.305/Maa/2023 dated 31.10.2023.

2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property comprised in Old Survey No.388, R.S.No.128/1 bearing New Door No.44 (Old No.65) in Thiagappa Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 to an extent of 3072 ½ sq.ft., of land with building thereon. It is his case that his father purchased the said property from one C.Balasubramaniam by a sale deed dated 04.12.1976. It is the specific case of petitioner that the present building is 50 years old and it is in existence for a few decades. The fifth respondent herein has purchased the property bearing Door No.42 in the same street, which is adjacent to the property of writ petitioner. It appears that the fifth respondent and her husband made several representations to the Corporation officials alleging that the petitioner has made construction without building plan approval. Even though the Corporation officials have issued a show cause notice in the year 2009 for taking action against the petitioner for unlawful construction, it is admitted that there was no follow up action. It is the case of petitioner that the official respondents dropped the proceedings after taking note of the fact that the building is 50 years old and therefore no planning permission is required. It is also stated that the fifth respondent is not residing in the property, which is adjacent to the petitioner's property, as she had vacated about 15 years back. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the fifth respondent, without notice to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned order finding that the officials of the local body have failed to take action, as contemplated under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.

3. The first respondent, who is the authority under the TAMIL NADU LOCAL BODIES OMBUDSMAN ACT , 2014, has passed the impugned order. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:-

4. The petitioner, while attacking the impugned order of first respondent, has raised the following grounds:-

(i) The first respondent passed the impugned order without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner before rendering adverse findings against the petitioner about the unauthorized construction and that therefore the order impugned is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(ii) The order of first respondent is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the nature of complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction or ambit of the TAMIL NADU LOCAL BODIES OMBUDSMAN ACT , 2014.

(iii) Proceedings were initiated by the respondents to stop the construction when the construction was long before 2009. In view of the specific statutory bar under the TAMIL NADU LOCAL BODIES OMBUDSMAN ACT , 2014, the first respondent has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the complaint after the expiry of five years of the violation stated to have taken place.

(iv) The first respondent passed the impugned order only on the basis of the statement of fifth respondent dated 25.09.2023 and on the statement of third respondent dated 18.10.2023. Since the petitioner is the person affected by any order or action in pursuance of the representation of the fifth respondent, the impugned order, without notice to the petitioner or an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the records or to cross examine the