Rengarajan v. The Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and W.M.P(MD)No.5306 of 2023 Rengarajan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The Director, Town and Country Planning Office, Chennai.

3.The Commissioner, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Trichy.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Srirangam Zone, Trichy.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.F1/7104/2018 dated 13.02.2023 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently, restraining the respondents and their men and agents from evicting the petitioner's house property situated at Door No.133, Mela Chithirai Street, Srirangam, Trichirappalli District without following the due process of law.

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Mathavan For R-1 & R-2 :Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate For R-3 & R-4 :Mr.R.Baskaran, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.B.Law Associates

O R D E R

[ Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.] Challenge in this writ petition is to the notice issued under Section 56(2-A) r/w Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

2. We had already held that as per the Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the authority who seeks to regulate the

development has to first issue a notice under Section 56(1) of the Act, requiring the owner to rectify or to remove the illegal development within a period of one month. If the rectification or removal does not happen, then it would be open to the authority to take action under Section 56(2) of the Act. We had disposed of W.P(MD)No.5283 of 2023 solely on the premise that the notice under Section 56(2-A) without issuance of notice under Section 56(1) at the first instance is invalid.

3. Mr.R.Basakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality would also fairly submit that in this case, notice under Section 56(1) had not been issued and therefore, the writ petition should be allowed.

4. In view of the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the writ petition is allowed. The notice issued under Section 56(2-A) of the Act, is quashed. It will be open to the respondent Municipality to take further action in accordance with law. No Costs. Consequently, consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]

27.06.2023 NCC :

Yes/No Index :

Yes/No PM To:

1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The Director, Town and Country Planning Office, Chennai.

R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.

and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

pm

27.06.2023