The petitioner challenged a revised building approval obtained by the second respondent. The Court held that pending litigation in the civil courts does not preclude the authority from granting building approval, dismissing the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.1390 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.1390 of 2020
P.Rajeshwari .... Petitioner Vs 1.The Member Secretary, CMDA, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. M/S.Loncor Holdings Ltd., Having its Registered office at Arihant VTN square, New No. 58 (Old No. 104) GN Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-17. .... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to cancel the revised building approval plan No. C3(S)/14707/2017 dated 15.07.2019 vide PP No. 11972 obtained by the 2nd respondent for the property in S.No.496/7A2 which is stated in the said approval as S. No. 496/7A2A2 and S.No.496/7A2B of Sozhinganallur Village, Sozhingnallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring an extent of 59 cents.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Parthasarathy
Page 1 of 4
W.P.No.1390 of 2020
For R1 : Mrs.P.Veena Suresh Standing Counsel For R2 : Ms.P.Pavithra Ragavi for Mr.C.Seethapathy
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the first
respondent to cancel the revised building approval plan No. C3(S)/14707/2017, dated 15.07.2019 vide PP No. 11972, obtained by the 2nd respondent for the property comprised in S.No.496/7A2, which is stated in the said approval as S.No.496/7A2A2 and S.No.496/7A2B, admeasuring 59 cents, situated at Sozhinganallur Village, Sozhingnallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 4
W.P.No.1390 of 2020
the subject property was considered by the first respondent, who granted a
revised building approval on 15.07.2019. Therefore, mere the pendency of the suit is not an impediment for the first respondent for granting any building approval.
29.10.2024
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp To
The Member Secretary, CMDA, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
Lpp
Page 3 of 4
W.P.No.1390 of 2020
W.P.No.1390 of 2020
29.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mere pendency of a civil suit is an impediment for granting a revised building approval plan.
Whether the representation filing varies the file of the petitioner for cancellation of the building approval plan.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Rajeshwari
The Member Secretary, CMDA, Egmore
M/S.Loncor Holdings Ltd.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
