ORDER : SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI AND K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.J. INTRODUCTORY : The maintainability of revision petition under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before locking and sealing the premises, is the core issue raised in these Writ Petitions. Lead Case :-W.P.No.16392 of 2015:- 2. The petitioner purchased a shop building admeasuring 188 sq.ft. at Door No.336, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai. The building was constructed by his vendor pursuant to the permission granted by the Corporation of Chennai, vide building permit dated 2 June 2010. The petitioner has been running a Pharmacy. While so, the second respondent issued a de-occupation notice dated 30 May 2015, calling upon the petitioner to discontinue the occupation of premises within 15 days for the purpose of locking and sealing on account of unauthorized construction. The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 80-A of the Act, challenging the de-occupation notice. The revision petition was returned to comply with the direction as contained in the de-occupation notice and represent thereafter. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition. 3. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, in his counter affidavit justified the impugned order. It was contended that the first proviso to Section 80-A clearly provides that application shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of sealing and as such, it is clear that revision would lie to the Government only in case the building is sealed. Submissions : 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the lead case contended that Legislature's intention is very clear that revision petition under Section 80-A of the Act is maintainable before sealing the premises. The learned Senior counsel took us through various provisions of the Act and demonstrated that there is no indication in the Act that only in case the building is locked, revision petition would lie. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General while supporting the order passed by the 1st respondent, contended that the proviso to Section 80-A gives a clear indication that sealing is a mandatory requirement for preferring revision. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the unscrupulous builders are resorting to unauthorized construction and in case sealing is not done immediately, the building would be sold and innocent purchasers would be affected. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the unscrupulous builders are resorting to unauthorized construction and in case sealing is not done immediately, the building would be sold and innocent purchasers would be affected. It was further contended that the Legislature is entitled to prescribe conditions for entertaining appeal/ revision and in the instant case, sealing is prescribed as a mandatory requirement. Discussion:- 6. The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, was enacted for planning development and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamil Nadu. Relevant Statutory provisions:- 7. (a) Section 49 deals with submission of application for permission to carry out development on any land or building. (b) Section 56 of the Act empowers the appropriate Planning Authority to take action for removal of unauthorized development. Section 56, as it stood originally, reads thus : 56. Power to require removal of unauthorised development- (1) Where any development of land or building has been carried out- (a) without permission required under this Act; or (b) in contravention of any permission granted or of any condition subject to which permission has been granted; or (c) after the permission for development of land or building has been duly revoked; or (d) in contravention of any permission which has been duly modified, the appropriate planning authority may, within (1 *) serve on the owner, a notice requiring him within such period, being not less than one month, as may be specified therein after the service of the notice, to take such steps as may be specified in the notice- (i) in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) above, to restore the land to its condition before the said development took place; (ii) in cases specified in clause (b) or (d) above, to secure compliance with the permission or with the conditions of the permission, as the case may be. (2) In particular, any such notice may, for the purposes aforesaid, require- (i) the demolition or alteration of any building or works; (ii) the carrying out on land, of any building or other operations; (iii) the discontinuance of any use of land or building: Provided that, in case the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land or building, the appropriate planning authority shall serve a notice on the occupier also. (c) Sub Section 2-A was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act, 61 of 2008, with effect from 10 February 2006. Section 56(2-A) now reads thus:- (2-A) If the owner or occupier, as the case may be, of land or building has not discontinued, the use of such land or building as required in the notice served under subsection (1), within the time specified therein, the appropriate planning authority if prima facie satisfied, may take action to discontinue the use of such land or building by looking and sealing the premises in such manner as may be prescribed irrespective of pendency of any application under section 49 or appeal under section 79 or any litigation before a court. The owner or occupier, as the case may be, of such land or building shall provide security for such sealed premises. (d) Section 57 empowers the Appropriate Planning Authority to stop unauthorized development. 57. Power to stop unauthorised development.- (1) Where any development as described in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 56 is being carried out, but has not bee completed, the appropriate planning authority may serve on the owner and the person carrying out the development, a notice requiring the development to be discontinued from the time of service of such notice. [(2) Where the notice under sub-section (1) has been served, the owner or the person carrying out any development shall discontinue the development from the date of service of such notice and inform the fact of discontinuance to the appropriate planning authority.] Provided that the provisions of clause (a) of sub section (4) of section 56 shall not apply to the notice served under sub-section (1) and the notice shall continue to have effect and the development shall not be continued during the period in which the final determination or disposal of application for permission under Section 49 is pending. (3) If the owner or the person carrying out the development has not discontinued the development as required in the notice served under sub-section(1).- (a) the appropriate planning authority may serve a notice on the owner requiring him within such period, being not less than seven days to remove that part of the building built subsequent to the notice served under sub-section (1). If, the direction is not complied with, within the period specified therein, the appropriate planning authority may demolish that part of the building built subsequent to the notice served under subsection (1) and reserve the right to recover the cost of any expenses incurred by it in this behalf from the owner, as an arrear of land revenue. (b) the appropriate planning authority may also proceed to seize any construction material, tool, machinery, equipment, scaffolding, vehicle or any other thing used for such development and kept within the site for development, (c) the material, tool, equipment, scaffolding, vehicle or any other thing so seized may be confiscated by such planning authority and sold by auction in such manner as may be prescribed and the sale proceeds shall be credited to the Fund Account. No claim shall be made by the owner or any other person, on the material, tool, equipment, scaffolding, vehicle or any other thing confiscated and on the sale proceeds. (4) Where the development as described in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 56 is being carried out, the planning authority may also take action to discontinue the development by locking and sealing the premises, in such manner as may be prescribed, till the production of the planning permission from the appropriate planning authority as required under this Act. (5) If the owner or the person carrying out the development has not complied with the requirement in the notices served under subsection (1) or (3), within the period specified therein, the appropriate planning authority may prosecute the owner for not complying with the notice. (6) (a) If the development as described in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of section 56 is discontinued, the provisions under sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 56 shall apply: (b) No person shall continue the development after obtaining any order of stay or interim injunction from any Court against the notice served by the appropriate Planning Authority under Section 56 or under this section. (c) Any development continued after obtaining the order to stay or interim injunction referred to in clause (b) shall be deemed to be unauthorized development and the appropriate planning authority may demolish such unauthorized development without any notice. (c) Any development continued after obtaining the order to stay or interim injunction referred to in clause (b) shall be deemed to be unauthorized development and the appropriate planning authority may demolish such unauthorized development without any notice. (e) Section 79 of the Act provides for appeal to the prescribed (f) Section 80 gives revisional powers to the Director and State authority against the decision or order passed under Section 49 or sub section (1) of Section 54 of the Act. Government against certain orders. (g) Section 81 provides for review of order passed under Section 76 to 78 and 80 of the Act. (h) Section 80-A was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 61 of 2008 with effect from 10 December 2008. The provision reads thus:- 80-A. Special Powers of Government.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 80, the Government may, on application, call for and examine the records of the appropriate planning authority in respect of sealing of the premises under sub-section (2-A) of section 56 or under section (4) of section 57 and if, in any case, it appears to the Government that any such action or decision should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly. Provided that every application to the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of sealing. Provided further that such application for revision shall be disposed of by the Government within ninety days from the date of receipt of the application. (2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representation. (3) The Government may pass such interim order, as they deem fit, pending the exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. 8. Section 80-A is in the nature of a special revision to the Government. It is neither an appeal nor a regular revision petition under Section 80 of the Act. 9. The principal question is, by introducing a proviso to the effect that period of limitation for filing application under Section 80-A is thirty days from the date of sealing, whether it would be construed that the revision would be maintainable only after completing the process of locking and sealing. 9. The principal question is, by introducing a proviso to the effect that period of limitation for filing application under Section 80-A is thirty days from the date of sealing, whether it would be construed that the revision would be maintainable only after completing the process of locking and sealing. Earlier decisions:- 10 (a) In a batch of writ petitions, a Division Bench of this Court (order dated 16 July 2013, in W.P.No.18940 of 2013, etc. batch) held that notices issued by the appropriate planning authority under sub section 2-A of Section 56 or sub section (4) of Section 57 are revisable orders under Section 80-A of the Act. Though there is no specific finding with regard to the maintainability of revision petition before actually sealing the premises, it would appear as if sealing is not a mandatory condition for entertaining a statutory revision petition. (b) This Court in M/s.Sankranti Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others, 2013(5) LW 864 , though in a different context, and without analyzing the statutory provisions in detail, held that a valid order passed under Section 56(2-A) is a mandatory requirement for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 80-A of the Act. Since in the said case challenge was only to the notice issued under sub section 2(iii) of Section 56 of the Act and not an order under sub Section 2-A of Section 56 of the Act, we have held that proceedings challenging such orders are not maintainable under Section 80-A of the Act. The said judgment is not an authority for the proposition that before sealing the premises pursuant to notice under sub section 2A of Section 56, revision petition is not maintainable under Section 80-A of the Act. (c) Subsequently, in K.Shaheen Begum vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, and another, (order dated 19.6.2014 in W.P.No.13768 of 2014), a Division Bench of which one of us was a party (Satish K.Agnihotri, J.) on a perusal of Section 80A of the Act, held that appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the original authority. By Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, and another, (order dated 19.6.2014 in W.P.No.13768 of 2014), a Division Bench of which one of us was a party (Satish K.Agnihotri, J.) on a perusal of Section 80A of the Act, held that appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the original authority. 11 (a) Section 56 of the Act proceeds as if, on receipt of notice under Section 56 (1) of the Act, if the developer makes an application for permission under Section 49 for the retention of the land or any buildings or works or for the continuance of any use of land or building to which the notice relates, the notice (except the cases covered by clause (iii) of sub section (2)) shall not be of any effect pending final determination or withdrawal of the application. (b) We are concerned only with clause (iii) of sub Section 2 of Section 56, which reads thus :- (2) In particular, any such notice may, for the purposes aforesaid, require........ (iii) the discontinuance of any use of land or building. (c) It was only to take further action pursuant to the notice issued under sub section (1) of Section 56, sub section 2-A was introduced by Act 61 of 2008. 12. The respondent wanted to read Section 80-A as a provision permitting developers to file revision petition after completing the process of locking and sealing the premises. The respondents have not produced any material to show that the legislature actually wanted such an extreme situation before entertaining a revision petition under Section 80-A of the Act. In case the reasoning given by the first respondent on the basis of the first proviso to Section 80-A is accepted, it would result in serious consequences which were not visualized by the Legislature while introducing the proviso. In case the building was constructed without a plan and permit, or additional floors were constructed, without permission, it would be a sound exercise of power to seal the premises. In case deviation is minor in nature, and a notice for locking/sealing is issued, it would deny the owner of premises of an opportunity to test the correctness of the notice. It is true that sub section 2-A of section 56 requires prima facie satisfaction on the part of the appropriate planning authority before taking the extreme step of locking and sealing the premises. It is true that sub section 2-A of section 56 requires prima facie satisfaction on the part of the appropriate planning authority before taking the extreme step of locking and sealing the premises. The impugned orders would show that decision was taken only at the divisional level without reference to the Commissioner. The action for locking and sealing would be resorted to even during the pendency of appeals under Section 49 or 79 of the Act or pending litigation before Courts. Such a stringent provision should be construed strictly. 13(a) The Legislature's intention that revision petition is maintainable against the decision before taking action for sealing is clear from sub section (1) of Section 80-A. The language of sub section (1) of Section 80A makes it clear that the Legislature wanted to lay down two contingencies which would give a ground to the aggrieved to approach the Government. The action referred to in Section 80(1) of the Act would cover the act of locking and sealing. The decision referred to in the said provision is nothing but the prima facie satisfaction arrived at by the concerned planning authority to take further action to discontinue the use of such land or building. Therefore, it is crystal clear that revision petition under Section 80A is maintainable challenging the action in locking and sealing as well as the decision to lock and seal the premises. (b) The limitation prescribed for filing revision petition by computing the period from the date of sealing would not imply that sealing is a mandatory requirement for entertaining proceedings under Section 80-A of the Act. This prescription is in the nature of an outer time limit. In case the revision petition is filed immediately after taking a decision to lock and seal the premises and well before the act of sealing, there is no question of limitation. The revision petition in the normal course should be filed immediately without waiting for the ultimate act of locking and sealing. Therefore, the requirement to file revision petition within 30 days from the date of sealing should be construed only as the outer time limit for invoking Section 80-A of the Act. (c) Sub section (3) of Section 80-A empowers the Government to pass interim orders. This gives an indication that the Government is empowered to stay the decision regarding locking and sealing, pending revision. (c) Sub section (3) of Section 80-A empowers the Government to pass interim orders. This gives an indication that the Government is empowered to stay the decision regarding locking and sealing, pending revision. In case the building is locked and sealed and revision is filed thereafter, there is no question of stay. It is therefore clear that before carrying out the act of sealing, revision is maintainable and the revision petitioner can make a request for an interim order. (d) The Legislature wanted such proceedings to attain finality at the earliest and the same is evident by the second proviso to Section 80-A of the Act. 14. While considering the submission that the world "or" used by the Legislature in Section 3(1)(c) of the U.P.(Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, should be construed as meaning "and" the Supreme Court in Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das, (1967) 1 SCR 836 , indicated the ordinary rule of construction in the following words: 8. In our view clause (c) of Section 3(1) cannot bear the construction suggested by Mr Desai. The clause is couched in simple and unambiguous language and in its plain meaning provides that it would be a good ground enabling a landlord to sue for eviction without the permission of the District Magistrate if the tenant has made or has permitted to be made without the landlord's consent in writing such construction which materially alters the accommodation or is likely substantially to diminish its value. The language of the clause makes it clear that the legislature wanted to lay down two alternatives which would furnish a ground to the landlord to sue without the District Magistrate's permission, that is, where the tenant has made such construction which would materially alter the accommodation or which would be likely to substantially diminish its value. The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the legislature from being carried out. There is no reason why the word “or” should be construed otherwise than in its ordinary meaning. There is no reason why the word “or” should be construed otherwise than in its ordinary meaning. If the construction suggested by Mr Desai were to be accepted and the word “or” were to be construed as meaning “and” it would mean that the construction should not only be such as materially alters the accommodation but is also such that it would substantially diminish its value. Such an interpretation is not warranted for the simple reason that there may conceivably be material alterations which do not, however, diminish the value of the accommodation and on the other hand there may equally conceivably be alterations which are not material alterations but nevertheless would substantially diminish the value of the premises. It seems to us that the legislature intended to provide for both the contingencies and where one or the other exists it was intended to furnish a ground to the landlord to sue his tenant without having to obtain the previous permission of the District Magistrate. The construction of clause (c) placed by the High Court is therefore not correct. Our answer to the legal question:- 15. We therefore hold that a special revision petition under Section 80-A of the Act is maintainable before the Government against the decision taken by the appropriate Planning Authority in respect of locking and sealing the premises under sub Section (2-A) of Section 56 or under sub section (4) of Section 57, even before resorting to the act of locking and sealing. In short, sealing the premises is not a condition precedent for filing special revision petition under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 61 of 2008. Disposal : 16. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioners are given liberty to represent the special revision petitions under Section 80-A of the Act. In case of such re-presentation within a period of two weeks from today, every effort shall be taken by the Government to dispose of the matter within the statutory period. 17. In the upshot, we allow the Writ Petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.