M.Razeeth Anver, v. The District Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 13.09.2017 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.8922 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 M.Razeeth Anver ... Petitioner vs.
1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
2. The Commissioner, The Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, Ramavarampuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in his proceedings in Notice No.120/2012 NLA dated 29.11.2012 and the consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No.916/11 NLA dated 09.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents in any way locking or sealing the premises belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.N-5/72, 73 namely "Bahira Hardware", Chettikulam Junction, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Sr.Counsel for Mr.M.Mohaboob Aathiff For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. for RR1 and 3 Mr.P.Athimoolapandian for R2
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 petitioner is running a Hardware shop at Nagercoil. He purchased the building in question by sale deed dated 04.08.2012. According to the petitioner, the building was put up by his vendor after obtaining required building permission from the statutory authority. He is aggrieved by the issuance of the impugned notice dated 29.11.2012 issued by the third respondent. 3.In response to the notice issued by this Court, the third respondent filed a typed set of papers, in which the deviations in respect of the building in question have been set out as follows: Sl.
No.
Description of rule
Present
condition at site Violation District Municipal Building Rules, 1972 1.
11((2)(a) Building line Not provided 100% 2.
12-Parking provision Not provided 100% 3.
14(1) 1/8 ventilation Not provided 100% 4.
14(3) window provision Not provided 100% 5.
15(2)(g) stair ventilation Not provided 100% Multi-storied and Public Building Rules, 1973 1.
4(a) to be declared as MSB since it is beyond 4 storeys Not provided 100% 2.
4(b) Minimum width of plot to be 24.50 Mtr.
Not provided 100% 3.
4(b)Minimum area of plot grounds Not provided 100% 4.
9-F S.I. - 100 Not provided 100% 5.
Plot Coverage 50% Not provided 100% 6.
11(1)(b) Front set back all around atleast 6 mtr.
Not provided 100% 7.
12(a) Access Way Not provided 100% 8.
12(2) Emergency Exit Not Provided 100% 9.
13-Parking facilities Not provided 100% 10.
14, 18 -Fire Safety norms to be adopted Not Provided 100% 4.In the said typed set of papers, it has been further specifically pointed out that the building comprises ground floor plus 4 floors and that it does not have any set back space on any side. No parking space has been provided. It also does not possess NOC from the Fire Service department. This NOC is a prerequisite for multi-storied buildings.
5.The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the aforesaid allegations made by the authority with respect to the deviations pointed out in respect of the building in question. 6.We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on records.
7.The impugned communication merely informs the petitioner that the construction is question is not in conformity with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972. The petitioner has only been required to obtain the requisite permission. It was made clear that if such permission is not obtained within 30 days, coercive action will follow. 8.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.
9.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.
10.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. 11.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(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
2. The Commissioner, The Nagercoil Municipality, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, 11-A, Ramanpillai Street, Ramavarampuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
+1cc to M/s. Ajmal Associates, Sr.No.55044 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.55684 ARUL VB/SKN/RSK/SAR4/19/04/2018/4P/6C Order made in W.P(MD)No.8922 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 13.03.2018