HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Victor Xavier Jamila – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director of Town – Respondent
Building - Writ Petition - Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1997 - Rule 34 (2) - The court directed the petitioner to make a fresh application for plan approval and mandated a ruling on merits after notifying interested parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, President of a church committee, challenged a notice under Rule 34 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules regarding a construction dispute with an adjacent land owner, who is also a complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court decided to not delve into the merits of the case and instructed the petitioner to submit a new application for necessary plan approval, ensuring it would be considered properly.
Issues: Whether the notice under Rule 34 (2) was justified and what procedural actions should follow under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision emphasized procedural fairness by allowing the petitioner to apply afresh, highlighting the importance of administrative processes in handling building approvals.
Final Decision: Writ Petition disposed with a direction to make a new application for plan approval.
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]
Challenging the notice issued by the fourth respondent under Rule
34 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1997 in Na.Ka.No.Aa3/1078/2023 dated 15.02.2024, 29.02.2024 and 01.03.2024, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2.Mr.T.Amjadkhan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the President of St.Micheal Adhi Thoodhar Church Administrative Committee. In the said church, the petitioner has constructed a Aasana Hall in the said Church Premises. There is a dispute with regard to the said construction between the petitioner and one Sebastin Princess, who is an adjacent land owner and a civil suit is also pending. On the basis of the complaint given by the said Sebastin Princes, the present impugned order is passed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits though the petitioner has sought for a larger relief, the petitioner, however restricted his prayer to the extent of to direct the first respondent to consider his application made in the year 2018 for grant of necessary approval.
5.Considering the above submission, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the petitioner to make a fresh application before the first respondent seeking necessary plan approval within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent to consider the said application and pass orders after issuing notice to the interested parties and pass order on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks therefrom.
6.With above direction this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[D.K.K., J.] & [R.V., J.]
05.03.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta To
1.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Tirunelveli Region, No.108, Trivendram Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.
3.The President, South Kallikulam Village Panchayat, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchyat), Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J .
ta W.P.(MD)No.5259 of 2024
05.03.2024
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.