Writ petitions challenging planning permissions are maintainable if jurisdictional issues arise, and compliance with zoning regulations validates construction, despite potential public nuisance.

ORDER :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner challenges the planning permission issued by the 1^st respondent to the 3^rd respondent with respect of the property situated in T.S.No.4860, 7025, 7026 and 4861/1, 7036/1 and 2, 7027/1 and 2 in Block No.113 of T.Nagar Village.

2. The petitioner states that the 3^rd respondent is running a hotel under the name and style of ‘Residency Towers’ at T.S.No.4861, 7025, 7026, 7028 on Thyagaraya Road. The 3^rd respondent subsequently purchased the property at T.S.No.7036/1, 7036/2, 7027/1 and 7027/2 on Raman Street from the erstwhile owners. The petitioner states that, in terms of the Master Plan, Raman Street is a residential area and there are no commercial establishments in the said area. It states as per the Master Plan, Raman Street is classified as a Primary Residential Zone. It is alleged that in utter violation of the zoning regulations, the 1^st respondent had permitted the 3^rd respondent to construct a hotel with lodging rooms, convention halls, etc., measuring 20,000 Sq.m.

3. The petitioner relies upon Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu Combined and Development Building Rules, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as 'the TNCDBR'] read with Annexure XVIII. It urges that as Raman Street is a Primary Residential Use Zone; hotels and lodging houses exceeding 500 Sq.m are not permissible. As the 3^rd respondent’s construction spread over 20,000 Sq.m, it is a violation of the aforesaid regulations.

4. The petitioner further states that misleading the respondents 1 and 2, the 3^rd respondent had shown the properties as one on Thyagaraya Road, when they are, in fact, located on the Raman Street. It adds that Raman Street is an 11 meter wide colony road and it does not permit construction as proposed by the 3^rd respondent.

5. The petitioner further submits that if construction as attempted by the 3^rd respondent is permitted, builders would purchase properties in residential areas and convert the same for commercial use. Thereby, defeating the very purpose for which zoning regulations are brought forth.

6. The petitioner alleges that from the start of the construction activities from October 2022, the 3^rd respondent has been using Raman Street as the entry and exit route for its construction, which has restricted the ingress and egress of the persons residing in Raman Street to their property. Furthermore, as the construction activities are carried on through the night, it results in noise and air pollution, and also cause significant inconvenience to the children who are attending Holy Angel’s Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, situated at one end of Raman Street.

7. Having obtained building permission for Door No.115, Thyagaraya Road, the 3^rd respondent is illegally constructing on the property at Door No.19, Raman Street. The petitioner states that if the construction is permitted, it would lead to over-stressing of traffic and other civic amenities in the area. He states that drainage and water supply lines on Raman Street are not designed to cater to large, multi-storied commercial hotels, like the one proposed by the 3^rd respondent. Hence, on the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner seeks the impugned planning permission to be quashed.

8. This Court entertained the writ petition on 10.08.2023. Respondents 1 and 3 have filed their counter affidavits.

9. It is the stand of the 1^st respondent that the 3^rd respondent applied for planning permission for Group Development with two blocks. It detained permission for Block No.1, at Door No.115, Thyagaraya Road comprised in T.S.No.4860, 7025