Partly allowed

Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B. Manickam Nadar v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Madras HC29 Nov 2024WP(MD)/17861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed clause 2 of an impugned order rejecting a building plan due to a reference to a lapsed Race Course DDP. The court directed the petitioner to rectify eleven other defects in the showing and re-submit the application within a stipulated timeframe for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of clause 2 of the impugned order; direction to petitioner to rectify defects and re-submit; direction to respondent to decide in six weeks.

Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B. Manickam Nadar… — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15321 and 15323 of 2024

¶8

1.Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B.Manickam Nadar, Packiathammal National Public

¶9

School Managing Board (53/2021), Represented by its Secretary, R.Ramadas, No.35, G.T.N.Salai, Dindigul-642 005.

¶10

2.Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B.Manickam Nadar, Packiathammal Matriculation School Managing Board (95/1996), Represented by its Secretary, M.K.Paramasivam, No.35, G.T.N.Salai, Dindigul-642 005. ... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd & 4^th Floor, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.

¶13

2.The Member Secretary, Dindigul Local Planning Authority, Dindigul.

¶14

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶16

3.The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipal Corporation, 15/9, Trichy Road, Dindigul-624 001.

¶17

4.The Deputy Director and District Town and Country Planning Officer, Dindigul District Town and Country Planning Office, No.14, Vivekananda Nagar, Dindigul-624 001. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent in File No.SWP/BPA/288478/2024/TCP dated 11.07.2024 and quash the same insofar as the rejection of planning approval citing the Balakrishnapuram Race Course Detailed Development Plan Part-II is concerned, and consequently to direct the respondents to grant approval to the petitioner's Online Building Plan Application in SWP/BPA/288478/2024 dated 08.07.2024.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Iniyavan Abdullah, For M/s.Ajmal Associates For R-1, R-2 & R-4 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate

¶20

For R-3 : Mr.J.Lawrence, Standing counsel

¶21

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent in File

¶25

No.SWP/BPA/288478/2024/TCP dated 11.07.2024 and quash the same insofar as the rejection of planning approval citing the Balakrishnapuram Race Course Detailed Development Plan Part-II is concerned, and consequently to direct the respondents to grant approval to the petitioner's Online Building Plan Application in SWP/BPA/288478/2024 dated 08.07.2024.

¶26

2.Heard the learned counsels on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.A.Iniyavan Abdullah, categorically submitted that the said impugned order is bad for certain reasons, more particularly the affecting parameters in clause 2 of the impugned order which has mentioned that the applicant's site falls under the scheme road E4-E4 (40 FEET) in Balakrishnapuram Race Course Detailed Development Plan No.II. Later, he drew my attention to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4057 of 2023, by which this Court has

¶28

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶30

passed an order dated 26.04.2023 wherein this Court has held that the aforesaid scheme has lapsed, since the land was not acquired even for a period of three years from the date of the plan under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶31

4.For which the learned Government Advocate fairly conceded that the said scheme has already lapsed. However, as far as the other eleven reasons which have been cited as affecting parameters have to be rectified by the applicant and re-submitted. Only then the petitioner's application could be considered in accordance with law. Unless and until the same are rectified, the same would remain returned again and again.

¶32

5.In view of the same, quashing the affecting clause (2) in the impugned order dated 11.07.2024, this Court hereby direct the petitioner to re-submit the application by rectifying the other defects which are pointed out in the impugned order. On receipt of the same, the 4^th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶35

6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶36

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

29.11.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml

¶39

¶40

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd & 4^th Floor, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai-600 107.

¶41

2.The Member Secretary, Dindigul Local Planning Authority, Dindigul. 3.The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipal Corporation, 15/9, Trichy Road, Dindigul-624 001.

¶42

4.The Deputy Director and District Town and Country Planning Officer, Dindigul District Town and Country Planning Office, No.14, Vivekananda Nagar, Dindigul-624 001.

¶43

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶45

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶46

Sml

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.17861 of 2024

¶48

29.11.2024

¶49

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B. Manickam Nadar v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dindigul Nadar Uravinmurai S.M.B. Manickam Nadar v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periyya.a Vs The Executive Engineer

Shanmuga Jegan Densingh R Vs the District Collector

Subramanian S Vs The Chief Engineer

Jebapackiam Vs the Branch Manager

Amutha.L Vs The Dean

Manjammal @ Manjammal Devi Vs The Branch Manager