High Court · 2024

W.P.No. 29744 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 15.02.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDARAndTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARW.P.No. 29744 of 2019 &WMP.Nos.29643 & 29644 of 2019---S.Edison …PetitionerVersus1. The Secretary to the GovernmentHousing and Urban Development DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduSecretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Principal Secretary/Member SecretaryChennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityThalaimuthu Natarajan MaligaiNo.11, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai,Chennai - 600 008. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20193.The CommissionerGreater Chennai CorporationRippon Buildings,Chennai - 600 003.4.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)Enforcement CellAdyar, Chennai - 600 020.5.The Executive Engineer-I,Regional Joint Commissioner (South)Zone - 13, AdyarChennai - 600 003. …RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the de-occupation Notice No. 5634 dated 04.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose the petitioner's application filed under Section 113-C dated 21.12.2017 before the 1st respondent within the time frame fixed by this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019For Petitioner:Mr.T.C. GopalakrishnanFor R1:Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government PleaderFor R2:Mr.Y.Bhuvanesh KumarSenior Counsel For RR3 to 5:Mr.D.B.R. PrabhuSenior Counsel---ORDER[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J]This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 5th respondent who issued de-occupation Notice No. 5634 dated 04.10.2019 and to direct the 1st respondent to process the petitioner's application under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, dated 21.12.2017. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20192.The petitioner states that he purchased Shop No.13, measuring about 4580 sq.ft., situated at Plot No. B9-A2 in Guru Complex at Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Extension, Chennai. The property purchased by the petitioner was duly registered and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying statutory dues to the concerned authorities. The petitioner further states that he is running a medical shop with a valid licences from the local body. The petitioner also states that the entire building with the first floor is as per the sanction issued by the second respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the commercial shop which is in the first floor and the approval for commercial shop was already obtained. It is seen that the petitioner has not produced any planning approval or any other document to show that the entire shop that was purchased by the petitioner is in accordance with the approved plan. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20193.It is admitted that the second respondent issued the impugned lock and seal and demolition notice dated 06.01.2016 noting down several deviations and violations building regulations in the whole building. After the said notice issued by the second respondent, the same has been challenged by filing a revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, by the vendor of the petitioner. The first respondent rejected the revision petition by order dated 13.07.2016. It was thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application for regularization in terms of Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, by paying necessary fees.4.The 5th respondent has now issued the impugned de-occupation Notice No. 5634 dated 04.10.2019 under Section 56, 2-A & 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Challenging the order under Section 57 to rectify the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019deviation in the premises, the above writ petition is filed. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to demonstrate before this Court as to how the petitioner's construction is authorized. However, the petitioner refers to the application submitted by him for regularization of the building in question in terms of Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. If the petitioner has filed an application for regularization of construction and the regularization of the building is permissible in accordance with law, the petitioner may be safe and at least some portion of the building could be saved from demolition by showing the regularization order. In this case, the respondents have not denied the pendency of the application for regularization. This Court has verified the materials produced before this Court and finds that the building is unauthorized, and not in accordance with the approved plan, and hence, this Court passes the following https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019order:-(a) The 2nd respondent/CMDA is directed to consider the application for regularization submitted by the petitioner in respect of the premises in question which is located in the first floor in Door No. B9-A2 in Guru Complex at Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041.(b) The first respondent is further directed to consider the said application within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein.(c) Till such time, the regularization application stated to have been filed by the petitioner is disposed of on merits, the impugned de-occupation notice shall be kept in abeyance. (d) Depending upon the outcome of the regularization application stated to have been filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall drop or take enforcement https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019action against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order.(e) It is also open to the petitioner to challenge the order that would be passed by the 2nd respondent/CMDA in case any adverse order is passed. 6.It is also represented by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/CMDA that the regularization application filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 113-C of the Town and Country Planning Act, would be subject to the outcome of the appeal that is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the validity of Government order specifying the manner of regularization. The statement of the learned counsel for CMDA is recorded. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20197.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.[S.S.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 15.02.20 24Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMSMTo1. The Secretary to the GovernmentHousing and Urban Development DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduSecretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Principal Secretary/Member SecretaryChennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityThalaimuthu Natarajan MaligaiNo.11, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai,Chennai - 600 008.3.The CommissionerGreater Chennai CorporationRippon Buildings,Chennai - 600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20194.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)Enforcement CellAdyar, Chennai - 600 020.5.The Executive Engineer-I,Regional Joint Commissioner (South)Zone - 13, AdyarChennai - 600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019S.S.SUNDAR, JandN. SENTHILKUMAR, JMSMW.P.No. 29744 of 201915.02.2024

W.P.No. 29744 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 15.02.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDARAndTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMARW.P.No. 29744 of 2019 &WMP.Nos.29643 & 29644 of 2019---S.Edison …PetitionerVersus1. The Secretary to the GovernmentHousing and Urban Development DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduSecretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Principal Secretary/Member SecretaryChennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityThalaimuthu Natarajan MaligaiNo.11, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai,Chennai - 600 008. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20193.The CommissionerGreater Chennai CorporationRippon Buildings,Chennai - 600 003.4.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)Enforcement CellAdyar, Chennai - 600 020.5.The Executive Engineer-I,Regional Joint Commissioner (South)Zone - 13, AdyarChennai - 600 003. …RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the de-occupation Notice No. 5634 dated 04.10.2019 issued by the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose the petitioner's application filed under Section 113-C dated 21.12.2017 before the 1st respondent within the time frame fixed by this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019For Petitioner:Mr.T.C. GopalakrishnanFor R1:Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government PleaderFor R2:Mr.Y.Bhuvanesh KumarSenior Counsel For RR3 to 5:Mr.D.B.R. PrabhuSenior Counsel---ORDER[Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J]This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 5th respondent who issued de-occupation Notice No. 5634 dated 04.10.2019 and to direct the 1st respondent to process the petitioner's application under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, dated 21.12.2017. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20192.The petitioner states that he purchased Shop No.13, measuring about 4580 sq.ft., situated at Plot No. B9-A2 in Guru Complex at Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Extension, Chennai. The property purchased by the petitioner was duly registered and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying statutory dues to the concerned authorities. The petitioner further states that he is running a medical shop with a valid licences from the local body. The petitioner also states that the entire building with the first floor is as per the sanction issued by the second respondent. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the commercial shop which is in the first floor and the approval for commercial shop was already obtained. It is seen that the petitioner has not produced any planning approval or any other document to show that the entire shop that was purchased by the petitioner is in accordance with the approved plan. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20193.It is admitted that the second respondent issued the impugned lock and seal and demolition notice dated 06.01.2016 noting down several deviations and violations building regulations in the whole building. After the said notice issued by the second respondent, the same has been challenged by filing a revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, by the vendor of the petitioner. The first respondent rejected the revision petition by order dated 13.07.2016. It was thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application for regularization in terms of Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, by paying necessary fees.4.The 5th respondent has now issued the impugned de-occupation Notice No. 5634 dated 04.10.2019 under Section 56, 2-A & 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Challenging the order under Section 57 to rectify the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019deviation in the premises, the above writ petition is filed. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to demonstrate before this Court as to how the petitioner's construction is authorized. However, the petitioner refers to the application submitted by him for regularization of the building in question in terms of Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. If the petitioner has filed an application for regularization of construction and the regularization of the building is permissible in accordance with law, the petitioner may be safe and at least some portion of the building could be saved from demolition by showing the regularization order. In this case, the respondents have not denied the pendency of the application for regularization. This Court has verified the materials produced before this Court and finds that the building is unauthorized, and not in accordance with the approved plan, and hence, this Court passes the following https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019order:-(a) The 2nd respondent/CMDA is directed to consider the application for regularization submitted by the petitioner in respect of the premises in question which is located in the first floor in Door No. B9-A2 in Guru Complex at Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041.(b) The first respondent is further directed to consider the said application within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and giving him an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein.(c) Till such time, the regularization application stated to have been filed by the petitioner is disposed of on merits, the impugned de-occupation notice shall be kept in abeyance. (d) Depending upon the outcome of the regularization application stated to have been filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall drop or take enforcement https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019action against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order.(e) It is also open to the petitioner to challenge the order that would be passed by the 2nd respondent/CMDA in case any adverse order is passed. 6.It is also represented by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/CMDA that the regularization application filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 113-C of the Town and Country Planning Act, would be subject to the outcome of the appeal that is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the validity of Government order specifying the manner of regularization. The statement of the learned counsel for CMDA is recorded. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20197.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.[S.S.S.R., J] [N.S., J] 15.02.20 24Index:Yes/NoSpeaking order: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMSMTo1. The Secretary to the GovernmentHousing and Urban Development DepartmentGovernment of Tamil NaduSecretariat, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Principal Secretary/Member SecretaryChennai Metropolitan Development AuthorityThalaimuthu Natarajan MaligaiNo.11, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai,Chennai - 600 008.3.The CommissionerGreater Chennai CorporationRippon Buildings,Chennai - 600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 20194.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)Enforcement CellAdyar, Chennai - 600 020.5.The Executive Engineer-I,Regional Joint Commissioner (South)Zone - 13, AdyarChennai - 600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No. 29744 of 2019S.S.SUNDAR, JandN. SENTHILKUMAR, JMSMW.P.No. 29744 of 201915.02.2024