Disposed

P.L. Packiaseelan, v. the Deputy Director of Town

Madras HC24 Jan 2023WP(MD)/19573/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for demolition of unauthorized construction. Court directed petitioner to approach the Local Planning Authority with a fresh representation. The Authority must hear all parties and decide within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to make fresh representation to the first respondent (Local Planning Authority); directed first respondent to consider it and pass orders after giving hearing within 8 weeks.

P.L. Packiaseelan, Vs the Deputy Director of Town — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD).No. 19573 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19573 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶8

P.L.Packiaseelan

¶9

..... Petitioner

¶10

Vs-

¶11

The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (I/c) Tirunelveli Region, 108, Trivandrum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002.

¶12

The Executive Officer, Thisayanvilai Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

J.Maria Anthony

¶14

Bellarmin Jacob

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass an order of demolition of the unapproved and unauthorised construction of commercial complex which is being constructed at Door No.578/4, Udangudi Road, Thisayanvilai, Tirunelveli

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD).No. 19573 of 2014

¶20

District by the respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 14.11.2014.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Prakash Additional Government Pleader For – R-1 : Mr.R.Anand For R-2 : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan For R3 and R-4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pass an order of demolition of the unapproved and unauthorised construction of commercial complex which is being constructed at Door No.578/4, Udangudi Road, Thisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District by the respondents 3 and 4 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2014.

¶24

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 3 and 4 have constructed the commercial building in violation

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD).No. 19573 of 2014

¶28

of the planning permission granted to them. He would contend that the respondents 3 and 4 accorded permission only to construct ground floor and first floor. But, however, proceeded to construct the second floor. Therefore, he made a representation to the second respondent to take appropriate action. Since no action has been taken, he had approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid prayer.

¶29

3. The first respondent had filed counter affidavit contending that the second respondent granted planning permission contravention with the Rules.

¶30

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner had made a representation to the second respondent to take appropriate action against the construction made by the respondents 3 and 4 which has not been considered till date. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent which is Local Planning Authority. On receipt of such representation, the first respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. However, before passing order, the first respondent shall afford an opportunity to all the parties concerned including the owner of the building

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

W.P(MD).No. 19573 of 2014

¶34

the respondents 3 and 4 herein. Such exercise shall be carried on within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter.

¶35

5. With the above said directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

24.01.2023

¶37

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD).No. 19573 of 2014

¶41

¶42

The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (I/c) Tirunelveli Region, 108, Trivandrum Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002.

¶43

The Executive Officer, Thisayanvilai Town Panchayat, Tirunelveli District.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD).No. 19573 of 2014

¶47

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶48

ebsi

¶49

Order made in W.P(MD)No. 19573 of 2014

¶50

24.01.2023

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

P.L. Packiaseelan, v. the Deputy Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.L. Packiaseelan, v. the Deputy Director of Town

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

Thirumal, Vs the District Collector

Rajasekaran, Vs the District Collector

Anbazhagan, Vs the District Collector

B. Santhakumari Amma Vs the District Collector

M. Kilavakonar, Vs the Sub Collector

K.Easwaran Vs the District Revenue Officer