A. Mariya Sathiyanesan, v. The Director Of Town
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 29.08.2017 Pronounced on : 13.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.7076 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 A.Mariya Sathiyanesan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, chennai - 600 002.
2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District,Kanyakumari.
3.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, Ramavarmpuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Roc.No.72/12 NLPA dated 28.03.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to unseal the petitioner's building in R.S.No.78/7B, Aloor Village, Kanyakumari. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P.
For RR1 to 3
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.] The petitioner questions the impugned proceedings issued by the Local Planning Authority, Nagercoil.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the building in question was put up only after obtaining approval from the Nagercoil Municipality.
3.The third respondent has filed a typed set of papers, in which the deviations in respect of the building in question has been set out in a tabulated format. The same is as under: Approval Details Violation Details Approval Present Sl.No Description of rule
Present
condition at site Violatio n District Municipal Building Rules, 1972 Ground + first floor Ground + 5 floors 1.
11(4) 1/4th open space Not provided 100% 2.
12-Parking provision Not Provided 100% 3.
15(1) stair case provision 100% 4.
14(3)set back provision 100% 5.
Location of site 100% Multi-storied and Public Building Rules, 1973 1.
4(a) to be declared as MSB since it is beyond 4 storeys As per PP not located in declared area provided 100% 2.
4(b) Minimum width of plot to be 24.50 Mtr. - as per PP 19.52 4.98 20.32% 3.
9-F S.I. - 100 4.
9 Plot Coverage 50% - as per PP 75.57% 25.57% 5.
11(1)(b) Front set back all around atleast 6 mtr. - as per PP provided 100% 6.
12(a) Access Way - as per PP not provided 100% 7.
12(2) Emergency Exit - as per PP not provided 100% 8.
13-Parking facilities - as per 8 car space 100% 9.
14, 18 -Fire Safety norms to be adopted - as per PP no NOC obtained 100% 10.
16(2) (b) Two exists - as per PP not provided 100%
4.The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the aforesaid allegations made by the authority with respect to the deviations committed by the petitioner.
5.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6.The impugned communication merely calls upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised constructions.
7.Though in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the building was constructed after taking permission from the local planning authority, the deviations highlighted in the counter affidavit has not really been explained by the writ petitioner.
8.In any event, there is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 80(A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner without resorting to the specific remedy available under the Act, has rushed to this Court and obtained an interim order.
9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkatta Municipal Corporation (2013 (5) SCC 336) observed that illegal and unauthorised construction of buildings and other structures not only violate the Municipal Laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other person. 10.The building in question is used by the public. It is a commercial building. Since the public are using the building, it must have a structurally sound building. There is nothing on record to see that the building was constructed in adherence to the safety standards. In any case, the local authority was correct in taking enforcement action. We are therefore of the view that there is no ground made out in this writ petition. We therefore dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, chennai - 600 002.
2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
3.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, Ramavarmpuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
+1CC to M/s.Ajmal Associates, SR.No. 55045 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.55685 ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.7076 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 13.03.2018 Arul AM/KK/SAR 1/24.04.2018/4P/6C