K.Lakshmikanthan, v. Mrs.v.R.Dhanalakshmi (Rs)
Case brief
What is this about?
This single-page unclear order by the Madras High Court clarifies that the Contempt Petition is not reopened despite conflicting contentions regarding demolition notices issued by the Commissioner. The court dismisses claims of conflict between notices and rejects requests to reopen the matter.
What did the court decide?
Clarification issued that the contempt petition is not reopened; no operative relief granted.
What the court decided
Cont.P.No.1829 of 2016
Cont.P.No.1829 of 2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. AND
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
(Order of the court was delivered by R.Subramanian, J.) The matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned” today.
2.We closed the contempt. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no action has been taken to demolish the deviated portion of the construction. Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the Commissioner has issued a demolition notice on 06.10.2022, seeking demolition of the entire building and on the same day addressed a letter to the President of Ayapakkam Panchayat requiring him to be present when the work of removal of the deviated portion is to be undertaken. According to the learned counsel, these two orders are conflicting each other. We are unable to agree with the said contention. The first notice is a notice in Section Form-1 of Section 56 which is in the form prescribed under the Act.
3.Any Enforcing Authority which enforces the development control rules has to only ensure that the deviated portion of the construction is removed, so that the construction is brought in conformity with the approved plan. The
1/3
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
Coram
R. Subramanian
K. Kumareswaraman
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court