Dismissed

Mrs.Meena Shivakumar, v. The Member Secretary

Madras HC30 Jan 2017WP/2042/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order demanding regularization fees for a property. The court observed that the matter involved a pending appeal by the former owner regarding the cut-off date for construction completion. The petitioners agreed to exhaust the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under the Town and Country Planning Act before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appellate authority under Section 113(A)(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

Mrs.Meena Shivakumar, Vs The Member… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.No.2042 of 2017

¶8

1.Meena Shivakumar 2.K.Shivakumar ... Petitioners -Vs1. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in impugned order No.Reg.I/B4/BC1/46543/2000 dated 19.10.2016 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent herein to regularize the building with reference to the Assessment and Collection of Regularization Fees (CMA) Rules 1995 amended upto 24.04.2002 and to issue revised approved plan after receiving the regularization fees and other charges as demanded by its letter dated 03.10.2001 in RegI/B4/BCI/46543/2000 in respect of the petitioners' property bearing New No.33, Old No.16/5, Akbarabad 1^st Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondents : Mr.K.Raja Srinivas for R-1 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader for R-2

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner initially sought to contend that the amount demanded by the respondent, the petitioner would be willing to pay, but then it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the CMDA that the issue is not of payment but whether the construction was completed before the cut-off date of 28.02.1999. In that behalf, we are informed, that an appeal by the erstwhile owner from whom the petitioner purchased is pending consideration. If that be the position, then the petitioner ought to exhaust the remedy as set out in the impugned letter dated 19.10.2016 itself, i.e. preferring appeal to the authorities concerned under Section 113 (A) (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, read with Rules 7 and 8 of the Application, Assessment and Collection Regularization Fee (CMA) Rules, 1999.

¶13

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority. Endorsement is made. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in terms aforesaid. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To 1. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. +2cc's to Mr.S.Sadasharam, Advocate, S.R.No.5361 +1cc to Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.5484 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.5652

¶14

W.P.No.2042 of 2017 PVS(CO) CA(09/02/2017)

¶15

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

Mrs.Meena Shivakumar, v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Meena Shivakumar, 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

S.Malarvizhi Vs The State Commissioner for

M/S.Brown Stone Foundation Vs a.Geetha

P.Paulraj, S/o.Pitchaikani, Vs The Secretary to Home

R.Kalamani Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

A.S.Subramaniya Jawahar Vs Chennai Metropolitan

S.Ramesh Vs Chennai Metropolitan