Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 27939
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director – Respondent
WP/14436/2020
The construction of any building or structure without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority is prohibited under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Headnote:
LAND USE - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT - COURT DIRECTED THE AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT IN SOME OTHER PLACE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent permitting the 5th respondent to establish a Sewage Treatment Plant in the place earmarked for a park in the proposed layout. The petitioner contended that the 5th respondent had formed an unapproved layout and made arrangements to let in the drainage water into the seepage canal, which would pollute the water in the seepage canal and affect the agricultural activities of the petitioner and others.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the portion of the impugned order permitting the 5th respondent to establish a Sewage Treatment Plant in the place earmarked for a park. The court confirmed the portion of the order directing the 5th respondent not to connect the drainage canal into the seepage canal. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the 5th respondent's application for the establishment of a Sewage Treatment Plant in some other place on merits and in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, and other interested persons.
Issues: Whether the 1st respondent erred in permitting the 5th respondent to establish a Sewage Treatment Plant in the place earmarked for a park in the proposed layout.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 1st respondent erred in permitting the 5th respondent to establish a Sewage Treatment Plant in the place earmarked for a park in the proposed layout. The court relied on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which prohibits the construction of any building or structure without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.
Final Decision: The court set aside the portion of the impugned order permitting the 5th respondent to establish a Sewage Treatment Plant in the place earmarked for a park. The court confirmed the portion of the order directing the 5th respondent not to connect the drainage canal into the seepage canal. The court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the 5th respondent's application for the establishment of a Sewage Treatment Plant in some other place on merits and in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the 5th respondent, and other interested persons.
W.P.No.14436 of 2020 & W.M.P. No.17924 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.P.No.14436 of 2020 &
W.M.P. No. 17924 of 2020
S. Murugesan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning
No.6, Subramaniam Nagar
Suramangalam, Salem 636 302
2. The District Collector
Erode District, Erode 638 011
3. The Assistant Director of Rural Development,
Panchayats, Erode 638 011
Erode District.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.
5. M. Loganathan
6. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
SIDCO Industrial Estate
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14436 of 2020 & W.M.P. No.17924 of 2020
Kalyanasundaram Street,Chennimalai Road,
Erode, 638 009
7. The Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort. St. George
Chennai 500 009.
... Respondents
(R6 Suo Motu impleaded vide order dated 09.09.2022 by TRJ, PDAJ
R7 Suo Motu impleaded vide order dated 18.11.2022 by RSMJ, KBJ.)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.17716/2018 Sa Dn-3
dated 12.02.2020 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and
consequently forbear the 5th respondent from constructing a common
sewage tank in the park area of the unapproved layout formed in S.F. Nos.
105 and 106 of Nadhipalayam Village, Gobichettipalayam,Erode District.
For Petitioner
: Mr. Shrish
for Mr. N. Manokaran
For R1 to R3 & R7 : Ms. R.L. Karthika, Government Advocate
For R4
: Mr. K.V. Sajeev Kumar
R5
: Mr. N. Balamurali Krishnan
For R6
: Ms. Shanmugavalli Sekar
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14436 of 2020 & W.M.P. No.17924 of 2020
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI, J.)
The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.17716/2018 Sa Dn-3
dated 12.02.2020 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and
consequently forbear the 5th respondent from constructing a common
sewage tank in the park area of the unapproved layout formed in S.F. Nos.
105 and 106 of Nadhipalayam Village, Gobichettipalayam,Erode District.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 7 and
learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, learned counsel
appearing for the 5th respondent and learned counsel appearing for the 6th
respondent and perused the entire materials on record.
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14436 of 2020 & W.M.P. No.17924 of 2020
3. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has formed an
unapproved layout and made arrangements to let in the drainage water into
the seepage canal, which will pollute the water in the seepage canal and
affect the agricultural activities of the petitioner and others. The petitioner
gave various representations and filed Writ Petitions before this Court. This
Court by order dated 11.02.2019 made in W.P. No.3145 of 2019, directed
the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass
orders on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as the
5th respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order. The 2nd respondent conducted enquiry. The petitioner as well
as the 5th respondent appeared before the 2nd respondent for enquiry.
During the course of enquiry on 01.07.2019, the 2nd respondent orally
informed the authorities to prevent the 5th responde
