ORDER : M.SUNDAR, J. In one month from now, captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] will be three years old. To be noted, captioned main WP was filed in this Court on 23.02.2022. 2. Subject matter of captioned main WP is a property at 'No.1, Club House Road, Chennai – 600 002' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. The said property is a land together with a 7 storey building thereon which is jointly owned by three individuals and two entities, details of which (as can be culled out from the case file before us) is as follows: SI.No. Description/Floor Details Owned by Occupier / Tenant 1 Basement Floor Cameo Corporate Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. 2 Ground Floor National Trust Housing Finance Ltd. A-Wing-Bank of Baroda, B-Wing-Vacant 3 First Floor Mr.VE.Subramanian Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. 4 Second Floor Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. A-Wing-Royal Sundaram GIC Ltd., B-Wing-Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. 5 Third Floor Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. A-Wing-Cameo Corporate Services Ltd., B-Wing-Sudarsanam & Associates 6 Fourth Floor Mr.C.Visalakshi Vacant 7 Fifth Floor Mrs.VE.Muthu Cameo Corporate Services Ltd. 3. Three co-owners, who are natural persons i.e., individuals, are writ petitioners before us and one of the Companies {'Cameo Corporate Services Ltd.,' (hereinafter 'CCSL' for the sake of convenience)} is R5 before us. 4. Suffice to say that a complaint arose regarding deviation from approved plan qua said property. This complaint culminated in an 'order dated 27.04.2021 bearing reference Letter No.5888/UD-VI(1)/2021-3' [hereinafter 'said order' for the sake of convenience]. Operative portion of said order is paragraph 12 thereat and the same reads as follows: '12. Considering the pandemic situation and necessity of maintaining health and hygiene in the premises and the willingness of the appellant to restore the building as per the approved plan, Government hereby grant 3 Months time to the appellant to make necessary alternate arrangements for removing the said structures from the set back space and restore it to the approved plan. The enforcement notice is stayed for a period of three months from the date of desealing the structure and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is requested to de-seal the structure for a period of three months time. Any violation in the conditions will result in re-sealing, without any further notice.' 5. To be noted, reference to 'appellant' in aforementioned paragraph 12 is a reference to 'CCSL'. 6. Any violation in the conditions will result in re-sealing, without any further notice.' 5. To be noted, reference to 'appellant' in aforementioned paragraph 12 is a reference to 'CCSL'. 6. Three co-owners (natural persons) filed the captioned writ petition with a prayer to mandamus R2 to R4 [Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority – CMDA and Greater Chennai Corporation – GCC] to act against R5 in terms of said order as well as Section 56 of 'the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972)' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. The complaint of the writ petitioners in a nutshell is that R5, which is both a co-owner and a lessee under writ petitioners, has put up certain illegal construction/s and installed generators in the set back space. It is in this context and in this setting that said order came to be made by R1. 7. We notice that post said order, the building qua said property was desealed on 22.07.2021 and it remains desealed still (even as of today). Post desealing, R2 issued a Lock and Seal / Demolition Notice dated 27.04.2022 bearing Letter No.EC/C-I/15593/2019 inter alia under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of said Act. To be noted, this27.04.2022 Lock and Seal / Demolition Notice was issued after inspection on 22.11.2021. Pending writ petition, pursuant to certain directions given by this Court, with the intention of having the matter sorted out as between the co-owners, there was another inspection on 26.06.2024 and R2 has filed a report dated 28.08.2024 in this Court but the report has met with objections from writ petitioners vide objections dated 19.09.2024. The crux and gravamen of the report of the CMDA and the objections bring to light that some re-arrangements have been made, which appears to have addressed the set back space issue alone (according to CMDA and learned Senior counsel for R5) but the same has violated car parking area (according to writ petitioners). Therefore, the kernel of the issue is, said property as of today is undisputedly not as per the approved plan. 8. The earlier proceedings of this Court brings to light that certain efforts have been taken to sort out the issues between the writ petitioners and R5. Therefore, the kernel of the issue is, said property as of today is undisputedly not as per the approved plan. 8. The earlier proceedings of this Court brings to light that certain efforts have been taken to sort out the issues between the writ petitioners and R5. This Court is informed that there are some lessor and lessee issue too but we refrain from delving into the same as the same would be outside the realm and remit of the instant legal drill but we deem it appropriate to record this submission. 9. The entire matter turns on a very simple and short point, that simple and short point is that there is an order by R1 (order in proceedings under Section 80A of said Act) where willingness of R5 to restore the building as per approved plan has been recorded and inter alia on that basis, R1 vide said order has directed desealing of said property for a period of three months to enable this process. Desealing was done but restoration to approved plan has not happened though three months time frame elapsed long ago (to be precise on 22.10.2021). To be noted, desealing was on 22.07.2021. 10. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to a building (admittedly)under violation i.e., not in compliance with the approved plan in the heart of the city. It is now for R2 to ensure that said order is implemented in letter and spirit, after all said order came to be made by R1 primarily on the basis of willingness expressed by R5 i.e., willingness to restore the said building as per approved plan. 11. Faced with the above situation, Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan, learned Standing counsel for R2 and Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Standing counsel for R3 and R4 submitted that needful i.e., bringing said property in compliance with approved plan will be done as expeditiously as the business of R3 and R4 would permit but in any event within three months from today i.e., by 24.04.2025. This submission is recorded. 12. Be that as it may, we are informed that there is a possibility of the deviations being set right by way of revised plan. If there is an application for revised plan, the same shall be made by all concerned in accordance with law within a fortnight from today i.e., by 07.02.2025. This submission is recorded. 12. Be that as it may, we are informed that there is a possibility of the deviations being set right by way of revised plan. If there is an application for revised plan, the same shall be made by all concerned in accordance with law within a fortnight from today i.e., by 07.02.2025. The application itself shall be in accordance with law and if that not be so, it should be summarily rejected and if it is in accordance with application requirements, the same shall be decided by CMDA as expeditiously as the business of R2 would permit but in any event within twelve weeks from today i.e., on or before 18.04.2025. We make it clear that the revised plan application consideration and any orders on the revised plan will be strictly in accordance with the obtaining regulations / obtaining law. If this does not happen by 18.04.2025 or if revised plan application is not made within a fortnight, said order shall be implemented by R2, R3 and R4 in letter and spirit and it shall be the duty of R2, R3 and R4 to ensure that said property is brought in compliance with approved plan. We have made it clear that the time lines (with sub time lines) in this regard is three months from today i.e., on or before 24.04.2025. Captioned WP disposed of in the aforesaid manner. In view of the manner in which the main WP is disposed of and in the light of the time lines set out therein, any interim order in captioned WMP will stand extinguished and captioned WMP is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.