K.Dhanapal v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.No.9215 of 2022 K.Dhanapal ... Petitioner -vs1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai.

2. The Executive Engineer, Zone-4, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith remove the lock and seal affixed on 26.03.2022 in the petitioner's property situated at Door No.203/2, Karunanidhi Nagar 2nd Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081 so as to enable the petitioner to carry out the rectification of the building and getting approval from the respondents in consonance with the present Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith remove the lock and seal affixed on 26.03.2022 in the petitioner's property situated at Door No.203/2, Karunanidhi Nagar 2nd Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081 so as to enable the petitioner to carry out the rectification of the building and getting approval from the respondents in consonance with the

present Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2022.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the superstructure to the extent of 110 sq.ft. situated at Door No.203/2, Karunanidhi Nagar 2nd Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081 and he purchased the same from one Mr.Sarangabani and his wife Mrs.Parameshwari vide registered sale deed No.3018/2015 dated 08.09.2015. The land on which the superstructure exists originally belonged to the Slum Clearance Board which was allotted to his erstwhile vendors. After purchasing of the same, since the same was in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner has demolished it and had put up a Ground Floor to an extent of 110 sq.ft. building for his tailoring shop. While so, the petitioner's superstructure was locked and sealed by the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2022 without giving any statutory notice. Therefore, the petitioner has given a representation dated 04.04.2022 seeking deseal of the property-in-question. Since there was no response for the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit if there is any violation of the planning permission, the violation committed by the petitioner, the nature of violation and also the extent of violation should be mentioned in the Lock and Seal Notice so that the petitioner would be in a better position to explain his definite case before the respondents and on receipt of the same, the case of the petitioner could be fairly examined. But in the present case, non-issuance of notice has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner is also not able to move forward to any appellate authority because he has not been served with the lock and seal notice. Secondly, he is completely kept in dark as to the alleged violation. Thirdly, he is not able to seek his remedy before the appellate authority. Therefore, the lock and seal effected by the 2nd respondent has to be removed forthwith.

4. Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also admitting the fact that the petitioner is running a tailoring shop in a small portion of the building-inquestion and the petitioner being the owner of the superstructure to the extent of 110 sq.ft, he also should have been issued with a copy of the lock and seal notice which has not been done. However, he attempted to justify the action of the respondents in sealing the property-in-question stating that since a part of the property belongs to the owner, namely, vendors of the petitioner herein, they have been properly served

with a copy of the Lock and Seal Notice.

5.

But we are not inclined to agree with the said justification of the learned Counsel for the respondents. Once the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents admits the factum that the petitioner has purchased only the superstructure from the owner, he is entitled to get the Lock and Seal Notice before sealing his portion. As notice has not been given, it goes without saying that he is unaware of the deviations which he would not have been able to rectify. Secondly, without any notice, he is not able to approach any higher authority seeking further remedy.

6.

In view of the above, the 2nd respondent is directed to deseal the property-in-question forthwith. It is made clear that if for any reason, the respondents come to a conclusion based on the records that the petitioner has put up construction without obtaining planning permission from the authorities concerned, it is open to them to take action in the manner known to law after issuing proper notice and after giving reasonable opportunity.

7.

With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsi To

1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai.

2. The Executive Engineer, Zone-4, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 001.

+1cc to Mr.K.Rajendran, Advocate SR.No.26400 +1cc to Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, Advocate SR.No.26600 W.P.No.9215 of 2022 SSN(CO) GMY(29/04/2022)