Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1247 (MAD)

T. R. B. Complex Building Owners Welfare Association, rep by its President P. Balamurugan, Consultant v. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep by its Member-Secretary

2015-03-03

M.VENUGOPAL, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2015
Judgment :- Satish K.Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take follow up action pursuant to the action / orders issued by the first respondent in Notice No.D/132/AE/003/2014 dated 10.2.2014, No.D/132/AE/004/2014 dated 10.2.2014, No.D/132/AE/005/2014, dated 17.2.2014, No.D/132/AE/006/2014 dated 17.2.2014, No.E/132/AE/007/2014 dated 3.9.2014 and No.D/132/AE/008/2014 dated 3.9.2014. 2. The petitioner had come up earlier with a writ petition, being W.P.No.24816 of 2014, seeking a direction to the official respondents to take urgent action on the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.09.2013 and 9.7.2014 for removal of encroachment allegedly made by the private respondents 6 and 7 in violation of the planning permission. The Corporation of Chennai, in response, appeared before the Court and informed that the Corporation had already issued a separate notice dated 3.9.2014, calling upon the private respondents 6 and 7 to discontinue the occupation of the premises in question. Recording the submission of the Corporation, the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. Now, the petitioner association has come up with the instant petition, seeking for the aforestated direction alleging that no substantial action has been taken against private respondents 6 and 7. The Corporation represented through Counsel, filed a counter affidavit dated 16.2.2015, stating that against the order dated 03.09.2014, a statutory appeal under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act has been preferred by the 6th respondent before the State Government on 16.10.2014 and as such, during the pendency of the appeal before the State Government, no further action can be taken against the alleged unauthorised construction. In respect of respondent No.7, it was stated by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent that no appeal has been preferred against the order dated 3.9.2014, whereunder he has been directed to discontinue the occupation of the premises in question, within ten days, enabling the authority to carry out locking, sealing and demolition under the provisions of the Act within the prescribed time. 4. In that event, we direct the authorities /official respondents to take action forthwith to ensure that unauthorised illegal construction contrary to planning permission is not allowed to continue, particularly after notice dated 3.9.2014, as aforestated, has been served on the 7th respondent. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.