Disposed

Shanthi v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Aug 2023WP(MD)/1054/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging illegal construction by a neighbor, the Madurai Bench directed the District Collector and Commissioner to decide on the petitioner's pending application for revised building permission within three months, leaving the demolition order for future steps based on that decision.

What did the court decide?

Subject to the decision on the revised plan application within three months.

Shanthi Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶8

and WMP(MD) Nos.992 and 992/2023

Shanthi

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Ramanathapuram.

¶13

2.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality Ramanathapuram.

¶14

3.The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning cum Local Town Planning Authority Door No.177/ 7 Kenikarai Ramanathapuram 623 504

¶15

4.R.K.S.Ramasamy ... Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish and remove the illegal construction made by the fourth respondent in the subject property in Old Door Nos.32, 32/1, 32/2 and 32/2A and New Door Nos. 38,38/1,38/2 and 40 Town survey No.46, Vanasankari Amman Kovil Street, Ramanathapuram in contrary to the approved building plan dated 21.09.2020 in SR No.135/CP/19-20/0001102, NP No.135/BL/2020/00063.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sasikumar for R1 & R3 Additional Government Pleader M/s.Lajapathi Roy Associates for R4 Mr.A.Kannan for R2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

We have heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent 1 & 3 and the learned counsel for the 2^nd and 4^th respondents.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is a neighbour. The respondent No.4 has had permission for constructing ground

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶28

and first floors. However, unauthorisedly constructed ground + three floors, without vacant space, as required under the regulation.

¶29

The learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 has already filed an application for retention and revised building permission on 22.07.2023 and the same is pending with the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 accepts that application

¶31

has been filed by the petitioner for retention and revised building plan permission has also been sought.

¶32

It is also submitted that the some suit is filed by the respondent No.4 against the petitioner in the civil Court for specific performance and the same is also pending.

¶33

In light of the aforesaid facts, we pass the following order:

¶34

“The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall decide the application filed by the

¶35

____________ Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶38

petitioner for retention and also for revised plan permission within a period of three months from today. Depending upon the decision taken by the respondents 2 and 3 on the application of the respondent No.4 for retention and revised plan permission, the parties may take further steps.”

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order

¶40

as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶41

[S.V.G., CJ.] [C.K, J.] 29.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No RR

¶42

____________ Page 4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶45

¶46

1.The District Collector Ramanathapuram.

¶47

2.The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality Ramanathapuram.

¶48

3.The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning cum Local Town Planning Authority

¶49

Door No.177/ 7 Kenikarai Ramanathapuram 623 504

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.1054 of 2023

¶53

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶54

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.1054 of 2023

¶56

29.08.2023

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

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

Shanthi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Chellappan Vs R. Mani

Balasubramanian, Vs T.Selvi, W/O.Tamilmani

Employees State Ins Corpn Vs M/S.Arihant Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.

Murugan.P Vs The District Collector

Jeyarani Nirmala Vs the District Collector

Pankiraj.G Vs The District Collector