Disposed

E.Geetha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Aug 2016WP/28097/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal of building plan approval by CMDA. While noting a pending appeal before the State Government under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the Court directed the State to decide the appeal within 3 months and maintained status quo in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the Section 79 appeal within three months, affording opportunity to the petitioner; status quo maintained until decision.

E.Geetha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶7

Writ Petition No.28097 of 2016

¶8

and

¶9

WMP.No.24242 of 2016

¶10

E.Geetha ...Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

¶13

Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government

¶14

Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Secretariat,

¶15

Chennai-600 009

¶16

2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority(CMDA)

¶17

Rep. By its Member Secretary Thalamuthu Natarajan Building

¶18

No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road

¶19

Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶20

3.Alamathi Village Panchayat

¶21

Rep. By its Executive Officer cum President Alamathi Village, Sholavaram Panchayat Union Thiruvallur District

¶22

4.Sholavaram Panchayat Union Rep. By its Commissioner Sholavaram, Thiruvallur District ...Respondents

¶23

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to impugned letter No.B3/20205/2015 dated 06.05.2016 in respect of lands comprised in Survey Nos.127/1C, 127/1B, 127/2A and 127/1A situated in No.111, Alamathi I Revenue Village abutting Redhills-Thiruvallur High Road, Sholavaram Panchayat Union, Thiruvallur District and quash the same and consequently forbear the 2^nd respondent from in any manner sealing the Godown in the petitioner property comprised in S.Nos.127/1C, 127/1B, 127/2A

¶24

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

¶25

and 127/1A situated in 111, Alamathi I Revenue Village abutting Redhills-Thiruvallur High Road, Sholavaram Panchayat.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathapkumar,

¶28

Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1, R3 and R4 Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas for R2

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

(Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.)

¶31

Heard Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Prathapkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, learned Standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

The averments in the Writ Petition is as follows:-

¶33

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property to an extent of 1 acre and 32.5 cents comprised in Survey Nos.127/1C, 127/1B, 127/2A and 127/1A situated in 111, Alamathi Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District and constructed a warehouse in the year 2011 but not obtained any formal approval of the plan from the Planning Authority. While so, the 2^nd respondent issued notice dated 04.11.2015 calling upon the petitioner to stop work and again by notice dated 23.11.2015, called to restore the land in original condition as mentioned therein within 30 days failing which action will be taken for locking and sealing of the premises. As against the same, the petitioner preferred a statutory application under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act along with stay petition.

¶34

The petitioner had applied for approval of the building plan by application dated 14.12.2015, however, the same was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by the impugned order dated 06.05.2016 on setting out as many as 26 Development Regulation violations. Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.05.2016, the petitioner is before this court.

¶35

As against the same, admittedly, the petitioner is stated to have preferred a statutory appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the 1^st respondent. Further, now, the grievance of the petitioner is that she has been served with de-occupation notice dated 02.08.2016 by the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

It is seen that the petitioner had already approached this court by way of W.P.No.60 of 2016 challenging the locking and sealing and de-occupation notice dated 23.11.2015 and this court by order dated 06.01.2016 directed the 1^st respondent to

¶37

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

¶38

consider the interlocutory application within a period of 2 weeks and the petitioner's main application within the statutory period prescribed under the provisions of law, on its own merits and in accordance with law. Further, this court granted status quo in respect of the property in question, for a period of two weeks.

¶39

The 1^st respondent, on the 80-A appeal preferred by the petitioner, by proceedings dated 03.03.2016, stayed the locking and sealing and demolition notice till the disposal of the Planning Permission Application by CMDA. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent/CMDA, by the impugned order dated 06.05.2016, refused the Planning Permission Application of the petitioner dated 14.12.2015 on the ground of Development Regulation Violations by pointing out as many as 26 violations.

¶40

Since the application under Section 79 of the Act is pending before the 1^st respondent as against the rejection of the Planning Permission dated 06.05.2016, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application dated 08.08.2016, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity to the petitioner to raise all her contentions. Till a decision is taken by the 1^st respondent in this regard, there shall be an order of status quo.

¶41

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. nvsri Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

¶42

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

¶43

Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

¶44

2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority(CMDA) Rep. By its Member Secretary Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶45

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

¶46

3.Alamathi Village Panchayat

¶47

Rep. By its Executive Officer cum President Alamathi Village, Sholavaram Panchayat Union Thiruvallur District

¶48

4.Sholavaram Panchayat Union Rep. By its Commissioner Sholavaram, Thiruvallur District

¶49

- 1 cc to Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, Advocate Sr 46416 + 1 cc to Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, Advocate Sr 45853 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 46150

¶50

KR/3/9/16

¶51

W.P.No.28097 of 2016

¶52

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

E.Geetha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Geetha v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

State Bank of India, Indl. Vs Dy. General Manager

The Inspector General, Vs G. Murali

The Inspector General Vs S.Chakravarthy

Madan Singh Purohit Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M.Ashraf Vs The Secretary

Aircel Cellular Limited Vs Union of India