The Honourable Mr v. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 01.02.2007Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWrit Petition Nos.12224/1998, 9188 to 9190 of 1999..W.P.No.12224 of 1998:M/s. Ankur Paradise Flat OwnersAssociation, No.20, Millers RoadKilpauk, Chennai 600 010...Petitioner..vs..1.N. Sambandam2.N.S. Vijaya Prasad3.Prakash N. Bhatavia4.M.S. Balaji5.Chennai Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority, Talamuthu NatarajanBuilding, Egmore, Chennai 600 008... RespondentsW.P.Nos.9188 to 9190 of 1999:N. Sambandam.. Petitioner in all the Wps.vs.1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. By its Member Secretary, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.2.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By itsSecretary, Housing and UrbanDevelopment DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Ankur Paradise Flat Owners Association rep. By its Secretary No.20, Millers Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.4.Navaratanmal LunawathPartner and Power Agent ofAnkur Housing Development Corporationnow having office at 'Ankur Manor'1st Floor, 182, Poonamallee High RoadKilpauk, Chennai 600 010. .. Respondents in all the Wps.Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus and CertiorarifiedMandamus as stated therein.W.P.No.12224 of 1998:- Writ of Mandamus directing to the 5threspondent to remove the unauthorised construction of walls made byRespondents 1 to 4 in the side set back portion on southern sideclosure of gate on the front side in the building complex at No.20millers Road, Kilpauk, Madras- 600 010.W.P.No.9188 of 1999:- (i) to issue a writ of certiorarifiedMandamus calling for the entire records of th Ist Respondent(Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) from the stage ofdevelopment Application dated 15.9.92 and planning permission aged4.11.92 granted in permit No.B/15024/42/A to E/92 of premisessituate at No.20. Millers Road, Kilpauk,. chennai-10 upto the issueof the Ist Demolition Notice dated 22.4.98 issued in their LetterNo.EN2/25700/97 and the 2nd Demolition Notice dated 31.8.98 issuedin their Letter No.EN2/25700/97 and all subsequent proceedings takenthereunder and to quash the said two impugned demolition notices onthe ground of want of jurisdiction and as being ultravires Article14 & 300A of the Constitution of India and as being opposed toprinciples of natural justice, besides violative of section 56(1) ofthe Tamilnadu Town & Country planning Act 1971 which confersimmunity from demolition in respect of any notice and consequentlyforbear the Ist respondent from implementing the said two impugneddemolition notices and further forbear the 3rd respondent hereinfrom carrying out their threat of demolition of all six crossboundary walls situate in the southern set back of the premisesknown as "Ankur Pradise" at No.20, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 or issue any other appropriate writ or order or directionagainst all the Respondents, which in the circumstances of the case,this Honourable Court deems fit to pass. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) award costs to the petitioner against all the Respondents.W.P.No.9189 of 1999:-(i) to declare section 2 (40-A) 113-A and 122(2) (CC) of theTamilnadu Town & Country planning Act (Amendment Act No.58 of 1998)which came into force on 1.3.99 as being ultravires Article 14 & 300A of the Constitution of India besides being violative of the clausein Section 56(1) of Tamilnadu Town & country planning Act 1971 whichconfer immunity from demolition in respect of nay buildingconstruction of which has been completed three years prior to theissue of demolition notice or issue any other appropriate writ ororder or direction against all the Respondents, which in thecircumstances of the case, this Honourable Court deems fit to passand thus render justice.(ii) award costs to the Petitioner against all the Respondents.W.P.No.9190 of 1999:- (i) to issue a writ of certiorari calling forthe entire records of the 2nd respondent herein in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.76H & UD (UD) Department dated 27.2.99 and the Application,Assessment and collection of Regularisation fee (ChennaiMetropolitan area )Rules 1999 issued thereunder as being ultraviresArticle 14 and 300-A of the of the Constitution of India and quashthe same as being violative of the clause in section 56(1) ofTamilnadu Town & Country planning Act 1971 which confers immunityfrom demolition in respect of building constructions which have beencompleted three years prior to the issue of demolition notice orissue any other appropriate writ or order or direction against allthe Respondents, which in the circumstances of the case, thisHonourable Court deems fit to pass and thus render justice and (ii) award costs to the Petitioner against all the Respondents.For Petitioner : Mr. V. Paul Dasin WP.12224/98 for M/s. Sampathkumar Assts.For petitioner : Mr. V. Bhimanin Wps.9188 to9190/1999.For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran for R.5in WP.12224/98 Mr. V. Bhiman for R.1For respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran for R.1in Wps.9188 to Mr.V. Paul Das for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9190/1999. for M/s. Sampathkumar Assts. and R.3.Mr. K. Elango Spl. G.P. R2No appearance R4..COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)Heard both sides.2. Considering the relief prayed by the respective parties, wedirected the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to submit areport. Pursuant to our direction, the Assistant Planner,Enforcement Cell of Madras Metropolitan Development Authorityinspected the property situated at Door No.20, Millers road,Kilpauk, Chennai on 24.11.2006 and observed the following details."3. CMDA has issued planning permission forground + 3 floors in Letter No.B2.21711.92dt.4.11.92. Ground Floor + 3 floors residentialbuildings are existing.4. All 3 sides (i.e. North, East and West)set back open space is existing with carparking. Apart from there is a covered carparking to the flat owners.5. The southern side there are six compoundcross walls to an height of 5 feet is existingin southern set back open area. One bay iscovered with fiber sheet lean to roof in thesecond bay.6. Further observed in the front portion inthe Southern side there is a permanenttransformer room and on the rear side of thesouthern side there is a children play areawherein play instruments are fixed and permanentmotor room. The six compound cross wallssituated in between the transformer room in oneside and the children play area on the otherside. The respondents 1 to 4 are residing inthe ground floor and all others are residing inthe first floor to third floor.7. There is no approval for compound crosswalls. "Apart from the above information, the Assistant Planner has alsoenclosed the inspection sketch pointing out compound cross brick https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ walls, for which no approval was granted. The said report is dated09.01.2007.3. Though Mr. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in WP.Nos.9188 to 9190 of 1999 submitted thatrepresentation has been made even in the year 1998 to theCommissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and UrbanDevelopment Department through Chennai Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthority, at this juncture, we are not inclined to issue anydirection for disposal of the said representation. However, thepetitioner in WP.Nos.9188 to 9190 of 1999, who is the firstrespondent in W.P.Noo.12224 of 1998, is permitted to make a freshrepresentation highlighting his grievance to the Member Secretary,Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The MemberSecretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, is directedto dispose of the said representation within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of such representation in accordance with law, afteraffording opportunity to all the parties concerned. Depending onthe decision of the Member Secretary, the Chennai MetropolitanDevelopment Authority, is free to take further action in respect ofthe offending portion if any.With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of.No costs.arSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.khTo1. The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai-600 008.1 cc to the Mr.V. Bhiman, ADvoate, Sr. 61761 cc to the Sampath Kumar, Associates, sr. 6191Writ Petition Nos.12224/98 & 9188to 9190 of 1999MS (CO)kk 6/2