Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR R. SURESH KUMAR, J
Devi Furniture Rep by its Proprietor Mr.P.Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Additional Secretary (Technical) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized construction and the implications of taking remedies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's directive on the appropriate procedural recourse. (Para 4) |
| 3. final order and implications of the court's ruling. (Para 5 , 6) |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by the revisional authority / Government, in exercise of powers under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is illegal, as it takes away the petitioner's right to take appropriate measures as envisaged under Section 56 (3) of the Act.
3. We find that it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner has constructed the building without any permission whatsoever. In such situation, it was within the power of the authority to take necessary steps to issue notice and require the petitioner to demolish the illegal construction.
3. Though the petitioner had a remedy as provided under Section
56(3) of the Act, the petitioner chose to challenge the demolition notice by filing a revision petition under Section 80-A of the Act.
4. In the absence of the petitioner himself having ta
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
