JUDGMENT R. Subramanian, J. The petitioners challenge the order of the 1st respondent dated 20.07.2018 made in appeal filed under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 2. The petitioners had put up a multi-storied residential building at Old Door No.5, New Door No.10 Rathinasabapathy Street, Old Washermanpet, comprised in R.S.No.3734/52, 3734/85, Block No.56 of Tondiarpet Village, Chennai - 18 after obtaining a planning permission. The construction was inspected by Enforcement Cell of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on 15.09.2010. Since it was found that the construction was being done without an approved plan the Authorities issued a stop work notice on 15.09.2010. Despite the stop work notice the construction proceeded further forcing the Authority to issue a lock and seal notice on 02.11.2010. The lock and seal notice also gave the details of violations as follows: S.No. Description As per approved plan As on site Deviation/Violation Remarks 1 Front Set Back 1.52 M 1.20 M Less by 0.32 M - 2 Rear Set Back 1.52 M 0.65 M Less by 0.87 M - 3 Side set back (West) 1.76 M 0.40 M Less by 1.38 M - 4 Building width Stilt floor (part)/ Ground Floor (part) 10.0 M 12.5 M Excess by 2.5 M - I to IIIrd floor 3.11 13.90 M (Due to projections at upper floors Excess by 0.79 M - Building Lengh stilt floor (part)/ Ground Floor (part) 25.60 M 29.15 M Excess by 3.55 M - I to IIIrd floor 27.13 M 29.15 M Exxcess by 2.02 M - 5 No. of floors No. of floors Stilt +2 floors Stilt floor, (pt) + Ground floor (pt) + 3 floors + 4th floor (pt Ground Floor (pt) + 3 rd floor & 4th floor (pt) is an unauthorized construction - 6 No. of Dwelling units 6 Dwelling units 7 dwelling units Excess by one dwelling units - 7 Due to conversion of part of Stilt floor into Ground Floor 3 nos. of car parking affected. 8 Ground Floor (part) + Third floor and fourth floor (part) are constructed unauthorised against the approved plan. 3. It appears that the petitioners submitted an application for planning permission after the issuance of lock and seal notice on 29.12.2010. The same was returned un-approved on 02.03.2011 stating that the permission sought for does not reflect the construction made as on site. 3. It appears that the petitioners submitted an application for planning permission after the issuance of lock and seal notice on 29.12.2010. The same was returned un-approved on 02.03.2011 stating that the permission sought for does not reflect the construction made as on site. The father of the 9th petitioner herein approached this Court in WP.No.15305 of 2011 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to remove the lock and seal to enable him to carry out the removal of the violations and to rectify the deviations. 4. This Court by an order dated 29.06.2011 directed the respondents to remove the seal and further directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized constructions within a period of three months from the date of removal of the seal. The said order also provided for a default clause giving liberty to the Authorities to proceed in accordance with law in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to remove the deviated constructions. 5. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority issued a notice on 28.07.2011 intimating the petitioner in WP.No.15305 of 2011 that the lock and seal will be removed subject to certain conditions as stipulated by this Court. It appears that the petitioners had again applied for planning permission on 13.05.2011. The said planning permission was also refused in view of the large scale deviations found in the building. 6. As against the refusal dated 07.12.2011, the petitioners had approached the Government under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The Government by its order dated 12.09.2013 rejected the appeal. The said rejection was challenged by some of the petitioners herein in WP.No.17153 of 2014. When the above writ petition came up before the Division Bench a representation was made on behalf of the petitioners that they are willing to demolish the unauthorized structure for the purpose of restoring the building to its original position in terms of the planning permission granted by the Corporation. In the light of the said submission, the Division Bench passed the following orders. "5. The petitioners are given liberty to make an application before the first respondent with a request to permit them to demolish the unauthorised structure. In case, any such application is given, the first respondent is directed to grant permission for the purpose of demolishing the unauthorised structure. "5. The petitioners are given liberty to make an application before the first respondent with a request to permit them to demolish the unauthorised structure. In case, any such application is given, the first respondent is directed to grant permission for the purpose of demolishing the unauthorised structure. The petitioners are granted eight weeks time to rectify the deviations. After demolishing the unauthorised structure, the first respondent shall inspect the building once again to confirm as to whether the unauthorised structure was removed. If it is found that the entire unauthorised structure is removed, the first respondent shall proceed the matter further. In case, the unauthorized structure is not removed within the time give, the first respondent is permitted to take further action, in accordance with law." 7. However, in gross violation of the undertaking made before this Court, the petitioners occupied the said premises by completing the constructions. Hence, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority issued a de-occupation notice on 09.06.2017 in letter No.EC/EA/N-I/13292/2010 that was a subject matter of challenge before the Government in the appeal under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 8. The Government found that the violations are not condonable. It was also found that despite their repeated undertakings given to the Court the petitioners have not demolished the offending structures and bring the building within the permissible limits. Therefore, the appeal was rejected by the Government by the order impugned in this writ petition. 9. We have heard Mrs.D.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 10. Mrs.D.Geetha, would submit that the Authorities have erroneously proceeded on the footing that it is Rule 28 of the Development Control Rules that would apply to the building in question. According to her, it is Rule 26 that would apply to her and if Rule 26 is applied and the building in question is treated as a special building, there is no violation of the requirements and hence the entire premise on which the Authorities have proceeded is incorrect. 11. We are unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the reason that Rule 26 will not apply to the site in question. 11. We are unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the reason that Rule 26 will not apply to the site in question. In order to apply Rule 26 for a special building in a continuous building area, the minimum plot extent should be 50 sq.m and maximum plot extent should be 80 sq.m. If the plot extent is above 80 sq.m, it is Rule 28 that would apply and not Rule 26. In the case on hand the plot extent is 584.81 sq.m., which is over and above the maximum extent prescribed under Rule 26. We therefore see no substance in the contentions of the counsel that Rule 26 should be applied and not Rule 28. Once it is found that Rule 28 that would apply, admittedly, there had been violation of every possible condition contemplated under Rule 28 of the Development Control Rules. The plot extent, plot frontage, the abutting road width are less than the required measurements. The FSI, plot coverage and number of floors permissible are in excess. The set backs all around the building are lesser than the required extent. The car parking is also lesser. The violations noted by the Authorities are as follows:- S.No. Rule Description Required/permissible Provided Remarks 1 28(2)A Plot extent 1200 m square 584.81 m square Less by 615.19 m square 2 28(2)B Plot frontage 25.0 m 16.16 m Less by 8.84 m 3 28(2)C Abutting rod width 12.00 m 9.27 m to 9.53 m Less by 0.962 4 28(2)D Floor space index 1.50 2.462 Excess by 0.962 5 28(2)E Plot Coverage 30% 69.36% Excess by 39.36% 6 28(2)F No. of floors permissible GF+ 3 Floors or stilt + 4 floors Max. 15.25 m height Stilt (Part) + GF (Part) +4 Floors with 16.16 m height. One floor excess and height exceeds by 0.91m 7 28(2)G Set backs all around 7.00 m North 0.26m South 0.68 m East 2.14 m West Nil Less by 6.74m Less by 6.32m Less by 4.86m Less by 7.00m 8 28(4) Annexure (XVI) Car parking 16 nos. 4 nos. Less by 12 nos 9 28(9)b(i) Lift 2 nos. 1 no. Less by 1 no 10 28(9)b(ii) Generator room not provided 11 28(9)b(iii) Neither transformer room of size 6.0mx4.0mx2.75m not open transformer yard provided 12 28(9)b(iv) Meter room of size 2.4x2.4m 2 nos. 4 nos. Less by 12 nos 9 28(9)b(i) Lift 2 nos. 1 no. Less by 1 no 10 28(9)b(ii) Generator room not provided 11 28(9)b(iii) Neither transformer room of size 6.0mx4.0mx2.75m not open transformer yard provided 12 28(9)b(iv) Meter room of size 2.4x2.4m 2 nos. not provided 13 28(10) Fire safety stair case 2 nos. 1 no. Less by 1 no. 14 No objection Certificate from DF&RS, Traffic Police are not provided. 15 Provision for sump and OHT for fire fighting rain water collecting sewage water recycling are not provided. 16 Structural Stability Certificate from the Class I Structural Engineer is not furnished 12. In the light of the above whole sale violation of every possible requirement of the Rule we do not think that the petitioners deserve any indulgence from this Court, the attempt made by the Authorities to bring the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan has been delayed by the petitioners for almost 8 years. We therefore see no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and it is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.