Dismissed

M.S.Abul Hasan, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC14 Sept 2023WP/12801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging de-occupation notices issued under the Town and Country Planning Act. The court held that the petitions were unsustainable as the petitioner failed to appear for the appeal hearing and the time granted for rectifying defects had expired.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded.

M.S.Abul Hasan, Vs The Secretary to Government — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.Nos. 12801 to 12807 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos. 15024, 15026, 15028, 15030 15032, 15034 and 15036 of 2018

¶7

M.S.Abul Hasan, .......... Petitioner in all

¶8

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

The Assistant Engineer, Unit 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶12

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Division 60, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶13

Page 1/8

¶14

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

¶15

The Assistant Engineer, Division 60, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶16

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶17

The Executive Engineer, Zone 05, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021. .....Respondents in all W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶18

COMMON PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the De-occupation Notice issued by the respondents 3, 4 and 5 dated 25.04.2018 under reference Letter No.05/00073/2017 under Section 56 Sub Section 2 (A) and 57 read with Section 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended by Act 61 of 2008, in respect of Shop Nos. G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-6 and G-7 respectively at premises bearing Door Nos.28-26 (221 and 222), NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001, and quash the same as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal dated 30.03.2017 filed by the petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner in all W.Ps : Mr.Ashok Menon

¶20

For Respondents in all W.Ps : Mr.P.Gurunathan for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.E.C.Ramesh for R2 to R5 Standing Counsel

¶21

Page 2/8

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J.)

¶26

These writ petitions have been filed to call for the records of

¶27

the De-occupation Notice issued by the respondents 3, 4 and 5 dated 25.04.2018 under reference Letter No.05/00073/2017 under Section 56 Sub Section 2 (A) and 57 read with Section 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended by Act 61 of 2008, in respect of Shop Nos. G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-6 and G-7 respectively at premises bearing Door Nos.28-26 (221 and 222), NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001, and quash the same as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the statutory appeal dated 30.03.2017 filed by the petitioner.

¶28

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶29

Greater Chennai Corporation had issued a Stop Work Notice/ Notice calling for approved plan to the building constructed at the site under reference on 01.03.2017 and also issued Lock and Seal, Demolition Notice No.05/00325/2017, dated 06.03.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to Government under section 80A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971.

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3/8

¶32

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶33

(ii). The said appeal was taken up for hearing after issuing notice to the petitioner. However on 10.12.2019, the petitioner did not appear before the competent authority and only the officials from Greater Chennai Corporation attended the hearing and submitted their report vide letter dated 24.06.2019, wherein, it has been stated that the owner of the premises had obtained the approval plan during the year 1998 vide Planning permission Application No.D2/3635/99, dated 02.08.1998. Further, they inspected the site and observed various deviations to the approved plan. On the basis of the records, the 1^st respondent passed the order in the appeal filed under Section 80-A as follows:

¶34

“ In view of the above, as the appellant is the part owner of the building in the said premises, the appeals filed by the appellant Thiru.M.S.Abul Hasan for his Shop Nos.1 to 7 in the Ground floor of the said building against the Notice No. 05/00325/2017 dated 06.03.2017 issued for the premises at No.28-26 (221-222 G5), N.S.C. Bose Road, George Town, Chennai-600001 is not maintainable. The Government hereby grant three months time to all the lawful owners of the building in the said premises to obtain Planning permission after rectifying the defects as per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and building Rules, 2019. Further, Greater

¶35

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

¶36

Page 4/8

¶37

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶38

Chennai Corporation/ Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is directed to pursue necessary enforcement action by the end of three months period afresh as per the provision of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 after ascertaining the present site condition and the Planning Permission details for the existing building in the said premises at No.28-26 (221-222 G5), N.S.C. Bose Road, George Town, Chennai-600001.”

¶39

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶40

the 1^st respondent would submit that as against the order passed under Section 80-A dated 27.04.2022, the remedy is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶42

the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 and the learned counsel appearing for R2 to R5.

¶43

A perusal of the order dated 27.04.2022 would go to

¶44

show that on the date of the personal hearing on 10.12.2019, the petitioner was not present. It is the duty of the petitioner to follow https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5/8

¶45

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶46

up the case. In the order passed in 80A appeal, three(3) months time was granted to the petitioner to rectify the defects. Now, the three(3) months time is elapsed. By this time, the petitioner could have rectified the defects. If not rectified, the authorities are directed to take necessary enforcement action in respect of the buildings in question.

¶47

In the light of the above, the writ petitions are unsustainable and accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

¶48

(J.N.B,J.) (N.M., J.) 14.09.2023

¶49

msv Index : Yes / No Internet :Yes/No Speaking order: Non-speaking order Neutral citation :Yes/No To

¶50

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

¶51

The Assistant Engineer, Unit 13, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶52

Page 6/8

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶55

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Division 60, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶56

4.The Assistant Engineer, Division 60, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶57

The Executive Engineer, Zone 05, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021.

¶58

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

¶59

Page 7/8

¶60

W.P.Nos.12801 to 12807 of 2018

¶61

J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA,J.

¶62

msv

¶63

W.P.Nos. 12801 to 12807 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos. 15024, 15026, 15028, 15030 15032, 15034 and 15036 of 2018

¶64

14.09.2023

¶65

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

¶66

Page 8/8

M.S.Abul Hasan, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Abul Hasan, v. The Secretary to Government

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

Dhanatejha Plot Owners Assoc Vs The District Collector

Balaji Asaithambi Vs National Green Tribunal

S.Mahadev Patel Vs The commissioner

M/S.Ramani Enterprises Vs the Secretary to Government

M/s.Kishore kumar Gokaldas HUF Vs the Secretary to Government

S.S.Ads Vs The District Collector