K.V.Krishnasamy, v. The Commissioner,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR K.V.Krishnasamy ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
2.C.Balasubramaniam ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take action against the illegal and unauthorized construction of residential building by the second respondent in Town Survey No.1613, D.No.15, Thennolaikara 2nd lane, Madurai within the time limit fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondent No.1 : Ms.S.Devasena 1/6
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to direct the first respondent to take action against the illegal and unauthorized construction of residential building by the second respondent in Town Survey No.1613, D.No.15, Thennolaikara 2nd lane, Madurai within the time limit fixed by this Court.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Corporation would submit that the second respondent has obtained building plan approval from the authority concerned, however, there is a deviation in the construction and necessary action will be taken for violating the building plan approval in accordance with law.
3.At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Rahamathunisha and others Vs. Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai and another reported in [2022 (6) CTC 145], wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
2/6
'19.Applying the parameters laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions mentioned supra to the present case, wherein, the petitioners sought an interim order forbearing the respondent authorities from taking coercive steps, so as to enable them to rectify and restore the subject building in consonance with the permissible planning rules and regulations, within a period of six months, this court is of the opinion that the practice of putting up an illegal construction and subsequently seek for regularisation or rectification should not be encouraged as it would give a wrong impression that a building can be unauthorisedly constructed and later, defects could be rectified.
In such cases, the plea for regularisation or rectification should not be entertained either as a matter of course or routine and it should be considered sparingly and reasonably. If it is shown that an unauthorised construction has been put up, it should be ordered to be demolished, thereby indicating a strong warning signal to the perpetrators of such offences. It is trite law that the respondent authorities should take action for the services rendered to the public, whereas in the instant case, after so many litigations, at the instance of the complainant, who is the neighbour of the subject building, the officials have taken action in accordance with law.
In many cases, they failed to do so promptly and appropriately; and the completion certificate issued by the authorities is, without proper verification of the actual status of the building, whether there is deviation / unauthorised construction.'
3/6
4.In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to take necessary action for removal of the deviated portion of the building in question, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the parties concerned. The said exercise shall be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [D.K.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.] 06.03.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps 4/6
To The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
5/6
D. KRISHNAKUMAR ,J.
and R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ps ORDER MADE IN DATED : 06.03.2024 6/6