Allowed

S.Syed Rabith v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Apr 2024WP/19670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order directing the petitioner to stop construction activity because it was passed without complying with the statutory notice requirements of Section 56(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application for building plan approval, which the respondents were to consider on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner directed to submit fresh application for building plan approval for consideration within three weeks.

S.Syed Rabith Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

Mrs.S.Syed Rabith

.. Petitioner

The District Collector Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu 600 301

¶12

The Commissioner

¶13

St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union Chitalapakkam Chennai 600 064

¶14

The President Vengaivasal Panchayat Chennai 600 126

¶15

4. Ms.Janani

¶16

.. Respondents

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pertaining to Na.Ka.No.1040/2023/A4 dated 27.03.2023 from the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same.

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

¶21

For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Jaganathan For Respondents :: Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Ganesan Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3 Mr.S.Balasubramaniam for R4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)

¶24

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1040/2023/A4 dated 27.03.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same.

¶25

Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition

¶26

are as follows:-

¶27

(a) The petitioner appears to have purchased the property measuring

¶28

an extent of 1413 sq.ft., comprised in Survey Nos.246/18 and 246/19 in Vengaivasal Village, Tambaram Firka in a public auction on 24.06.2022. Strangely, the petitioner received the notice dated 17.02.2022 only on

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

¶32

01.03.2023 from the third respondent as if the petitioner had put up construction in deviation of the approved plan. It is the case of petitioner that the second respondent, without issuing the statutory notice in terms of Section 56(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, has passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 directing the petitioner to stop the construction activity until further orders. The impugned order does not even refer to any show cause notice being issued to the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶33

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. It is stated by the second respondent that though the building permission granted to the erstwhile owner got expired, the petitioner has put up the construction without making a renewal application, in terms of Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1977. Therefore, the impugned order has been issued to stop the illegal construction put up by the petitioner until further orders.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

¶37

It appears that the erstwhile owner had applied for building plan

¶38

permission. Though the planning permission was granted, the counsel appearing for the local body states that the construction was not completed within the time prescribed and there was no fresh application for renewal. It is at that stage the petitioner appears to have purchased the property. However, the petitioner was not allowed to complete the construction, as there was no renewal of application for completing the construction. In this context, Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1977 is extracted below:-

¶39

“30. Lapse of permission:

¶40

If the construction or reconstruction of any building is not completed within the period specified, the permission shall lapse and a fresh application shall be made before the work is continued.”

¶41

In the light of the above and considering the facts and

¶42

circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:-

¶43

(i) The impugned order dated 27.03.2023 is quashed.

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

¶47

(ii) Since the petitioner herself has admitted that the construction is not yet completed, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application for building plan approval/permission and the second respondent shall consider the application and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of fresh application that may be filed by the petitioner in physical mode before the second respondent.

¶48

The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.18934 &

¶49

18935 of 2023 are closed. No order as to costs.

¶50

Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 18.04.2024

¶51

¶52

¶53

The District Collector Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu 600 301

¶54

The Commissioner St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union Chitalapakkam, Chennai 600 064

¶55

The President Vengaivasal Panchayat Chennai 600 126

¶56

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

S.S.SUNDAR,J. AND

N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.19670 of 2023

18.04.2024

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶65

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

S.Syed Rabith v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Syed Rabith 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.R.Raghunathan Vs The Additional chief secretary to Government

H.Haroon Vs The District Collector

A.Soundara Raajan Vs The Secretary to Govt

G.Johny, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Sekar Vs the Chairman

M/S.Psd Aqua Vs the Chief Engineer