Allowed

B.Harish Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC15 Nov 2022WP/30133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the City Development Authority to remove the lock and seal on the petitioners' property within one week. The petitioners were granted six months to rectify defects and comply with the sanctioned plan, with a reminder that no further extension would be allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to remove the lock and seal within one week and granted the petitioners six months to rectify defects without further extension.

B.Harish Kumar Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.11.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶5

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.29569 of 2022

1.B.Harish Kumar

2.B.Sanjay Kumar

3.B.Deepak Kumar

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ..Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to forthwith remove the lock and seal on 18.08.2021 in the petitioners' property

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶19

at Old No.306, New No.420, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 003 comprised in R.S.No.9356, Block No.77 of VOC Nagar Village for a period of about six months so far as to enable the petitioners to rectify and restore the said premises in confirmity with the sanctioned plan and the present Tamil Nadu Combined Development Rules, 2019 on the basis of the petitioners representation dated 14.10.2022 addressed to the respondents.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deendayalan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.C.N.Vinobha Standing Counsel for R2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)

¶23

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a mandamus

¶24

to remove the lock and seal in respect of the property bearing Old Door No.306, New No.420, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 003 comprised in R.S.No.9356, Block No.77 of VOC Nagar Village for a period of six months to enable the petitioners to rectify the defects and bring the premises in confirmity with the sanctioned plan.

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶28

2.The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the planning permission granted by the Chennai Corporation, he had put up a building. The Chennai Corporation found that there has been some deviation in construction of the building and issued a lock and seal notice dated 18.03.2015 to the petitioners. Being aggrieved against the lock and seal notice, the petitioners preferred a Special Revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the 1st respondent. Noticing there was no floor violation in the building except for conversion of part of the Stilt Floor for commercial purpose and construction of part of the second floor, which was supposed to be kept as open terrace, the 1^st respondent by its order dated 17.03.2017, granted six months time to rectify the defects and directed desealing of the premises.

¶29

3.Due to certain personal issues, the petitioner was not able to rectify the defects within the said time and had also been granted two more extensions by the authorities. However, due to intervening Covid pandemic, they were not able to rectify the same and seeks intervention of this Court to grant six months time finally to rectify the defects.

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶33

4.Considering the submissions made, the 2nd respondent is directed to deseal the premises within a period of one week from today and the petitioners are directed to bring the building in confirmity with the sanctioned plan issued by the Chennai Corporation in planning permit No. PPA/WDCO5/00161/2013 within a period of six months thereafter. It is made clear that no further time will be granted. If the building is not brought within the ambit of the sanctioned plan within the time granted, then it is open to the 2^nd respondent to take appropriate enforcement action in confirmity with the law.

¶34

5.This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No

¶35

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 15.11.2022

¶37

kkn

¶38

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶42

To:-

¶43

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶45

5/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.No.30133 of 2022

¶48

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶49

KKN

¶50

W.P.No.30133 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.29569 of 2022

¶51

15.11.2022

¶52

6/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Harish Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Harish Kumar v. The Government 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

The J.K.K.Nataraj Nagar Vs Mohanasundaram

B.Nandakumar Vs the Commissioner

T.N.Natarajan(Died) Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by It

Tamil Nadu Airport Workers Union Vs E.Deivasagayam

Church Of South India Trust Association Vs The District Revenue Officer

The Tamilnadu Housing Board Vs R.Rajaram