Disposed

K.Sampath, v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC4 Sept 2014WP(MD)/14447/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an impugned notice under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, quashing it and restraining demolition. The Court observed the notice was remediable, directed the petitioner to file a revised plan within three days, and ordered the corporation to inspect and consider it within two weeks, dismissing apprehensions of immediate sealing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file revised plan within three days; Corporation to inspect and consider plan within two weeks; Writ petition disposed.

K.Sampath, Vs the Member Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14447 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

K.Sampath

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Member Secretary, Local Town and Country Planning Authority, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation.

¶11

2.The Commissioner,

¶12

Tiruchirappalli Corporation.

¶13

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Srirengam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli Corporation. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.F1/2445/2012 dated 19.08.2014 and quash the same and consequently, restrain the respondents from demolishing the building raised by the petitioner in his property in Door No.46C situate at T.S.No.4/1, Block No.49, Ward F, Karur bye pass road, Chinthamani Village, Tiruchirappalli.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Maria Roseline For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 19.08.2014 and to restrain the respondents from demolishing the petitioner’s commercial building.

¶18

2.The impugned notice states that the petitioner has violated the approved building plan and three violations have been pointed out. They being, site set back violation, un-authorized conversion of basement floor and construction of ground floor in excess of what was permitted under the building rules. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has been granted 30 days time to restore the building in accordance with the approved plan, failing which, the

¶19

¶20

petitioner has been informed that action will be taken under Section 56(2A) r/w Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and building will be locked and sealed. Since the impugned proceedings is only a notice, the petitioner ought to have submitted their reply or rectify the defects pointed out.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has submitted a revised plan and also paid the necessary fee of Rs.1,12,200/- together with a sum of Rs.14,500/and in this regard, a copy of the receipts issued by the 2nd respondent / Corporation has been produced.

¶22

4.The contention raised by the petitioner is seriously disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contending that fee receipt has been remitted, but, the copy of the revised plan has not been produced and there is no proof to show that the revised plan was submitted to the authority.

¶23

5.In any event, the impugned proceedings grants 30 days time to restore the building in accordance with the approved plan. However, the Act also provides for the petitioner to submit revised plan for rectifying the defects and ensuring that the building is in accordance with the approved plan. Therefore, the petitioner should not be foreclosed from filing a revised plan before the authority. Since the filing of the revised plan is disputed by the respondents, there will be a direction to the petitioner to file the revised plan along with all other connected documents, within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if not already filed and on receipt of the same, the respondent / Corporation shall conduct inspection of the building and consider and pass orders on the revised plan submitted by the petitioner within a period of 2 weeks thereafter.

¶24

6.Since the impugned notice itself grants 30 days time, the petitioner need not have any apprehension that within the said period, the building will be locked and sealed. Further more, this Court has also issued the direction to the respondents to consider the revised plan in accordance with law.

¶25

The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

¶31

¶32

1.The Member Secretary, Local Town and Country Planning Authority, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation.

¶33

2.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Corporation.

¶34

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Srirengam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli Corporation.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.J.Maria Roseline, Advocate, in SR. No.49741.

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.14447 of 2014

¶37

04.09.2014

¶38

nbj msm 04.09.2014 p3/5c(IT)

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Sampath, v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sampath, v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt.S. Kasthuri, Vs the Senior Divisional Retail

Kasi Reddiyar Vs the Panchayat President

Gopal, Vs the District Collector

M. Balasubramanian Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Karthikeyan Vs the Branch Manager

Vellaichamy, Vs the District Revenue Officer