K.R.Ravi Kannan, v. The Member Secretary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 K.R.Ravi Kannan ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Member Secretary, Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority, No.13, Varadharajanar Street, Vedachalam Nagar, Chengalpet-603 001.
2. The President, Muttukadu Panchayat/ Village, Tiruporur Panchayat Union, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
PIN-603 103.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondents culminating in the impugned notice issued by the first respondent dated 16.09.2014 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.671/2014 Ma Vu Thi Ku(1), quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 16.09.2014, thereby directed the petitioner to restore the subject property in its original position by renewal of construction and construction material, failing which, the subject premises will be lock and sealed by removing all the materials.
2. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner owned property comprised in S.Nos.95/1A8, 95/1A4E, 95/1A7B2 (as per Patta No.95/1A3B9) ad-measuring an extent of 1 acre and 23 cents situated at No.36, Muttukadu Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It was purchased by the petitioner by the registered sale deed dated 24.10.2011 vide Document No.10201 of 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent seeking permission to put up a residential building along with the plan of the proposed construction. The petitioner sought for approval and permission as per the plan. The second respondent approved and
granted permission to the petitioner by its proceeding dated 20.02.2014 for construction of residential building. Accordingly, the petitioner constructed a house and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said house.
4. While being so, the Block Development Officer, Tiruporur issued notice dated 19.08.2014 calling upon the second respondent to cancel the planning permission and also to take coercive action as against the petitioner. In fact, after construction of the house, the petitioner's house is assessed with property tax with the office of the second respondent. While being so, the first respondent issued notice dated 16.09.2014 under Section 56 and 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The planning permission issued by the second respondent is not valid and thereby called upon the petitioner to restore the land in its original position and apply to the first respondent for planning permission, failing which the subject premises will be locked and sealed. Hence, this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent is the authority to grant planning permission and approval and accordingly, the petitioner was granted approval permission to construct the residential building by the second respondent on 20.02.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner constructed a house and assessed with property tax. While being so, the first respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without even giving an opportunity of hearing, straightaway passed an order dated 16.09.2014, thereby directed to restore the subject property in its original position, within a period of seven days. It is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
6. In fact, the specific case of the petitioner is that the reference made in the order impugned in this writ petition are that notice dated 28.07.2014 and letter dated 18.08.2014 which is completely denied and no such notice was served on the petitioner and no letter was issued by the petitioner on 18.08.2014.
7. On instructions, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the second respondent is not the authority to grant any planning permission or approval for construction of residential house that too in the Coastal Regulation Zone I. The subject property is situated within Coastal Regulation Zone III and no planning permission or approval can be granted for construction of any residential building. The petitioner unauthorizedly constructed ground floor and first floor of residential building to an extent of 3700 sq.ft in Thiruporur Taluk, Muttukadu Village in Coastal Regulation Zone - III. Further, Section 3(1) of the Tamill Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1997 deals with application for approval of layout site.
No owner or other persons shall form layouts street, lane, passage or pathway or open spaces like parks, plan fields, children's plan space or subdivide or utilize the land sites for building purposes until a layout plan has been approved by the Executive Authority who shall get prior concurrence of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning for such approval.
and it has to be earmarked as "No Development Zone" as per Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. Further as per Section 8(III)(ii) of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011, no construction shall be permitted within "No Development Zone". Therefore, the petitioner violated the provision of the Act and Rules and constructed a residential building.
8. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is before issuance of notice dated 16.09.2014, the petitioner was given an opportunity or not?
9. Though the order impugned in this writ petition referred the notice dated 28.07.2014 and letter dated 18.08.2014, there is absolutely no discussion about the notice as well as the letter submitted by the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was never served any notice dated 28.07.2014 from the file of the first respondent. Further, the petitioner had not sent any letter dated
18.08.2014 to the respondents herein. The first respondent also failed to produce any record to show that the petitioner was issued notice and received reply dated 18.08.2014.
10. On this sole ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned notice issued by the first respondent dated 16.09.2014 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.671/2014 Ma Vu Thi Ku(1), is hereby quashed.
11. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to take action as per Sections 56 and 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 30.09.2024 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn
To
1. The Member Secretary, Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority, No.13, Varadharajanar Street, Vedachalam Nagar, Chengalpet-603 001.
2. The President, Muttukadu Panchayat/ Village, Tiruporur Panchayat Union, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
PIN-603 103.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn 30.09.2024