(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard learned counsel for parties at length.
2. Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.3248 of 2006 are husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as the private respondents). They own the adjacent property of that of the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner is that the private respondents have constructed two more storeys without permission. This fact is not in dispute. Thereafter, a saga has continued for seven years by these private respondents for somehow preventing action against the unauthorized construction.
3. We may note that it is as far back as 22.9.2006 in W.P.No.3248 of 2006 that an order was issued for demolition of the unauthorized construction of the private respondents. The matter has gone to the highest court and come back. The fact is that the private respondents have received no reprieve so far.
4. The private respondents filed the last proceedings being W.P.No.19869 of 2016 claiming that they had filed some appeal before the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu and the lock and seal notices had been issued pending consideration of the appeal. The Division Bench, thus, opined on 10.6.2016 that the lock put up in the premises be removed as the appellate authority is seized of the matter.
5. The petitioner before us thereafter filed SLP (Civil) No.17449 of 2016 against that order aggrieved by that aspect of the seal to be removed. In the order dated 5.12.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded that since the appeal filed by the private respondents has been dismissed on 28.4.2016 by the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the special leave petition has been rendered infructuous. A consequential order was passed that possession be restored as it existed prior to the passing of the order dated 10.6.2016. We are informed that now a review application has been filed by the private respondents, which is listed today.
6. We have repeatedly questioned the learned counsel for the private respondents as to what appeal, if at all, is still pending according to him. There is no answer other than to state that on 4.8.2016 a revision petition has been filed under Section 113C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. That is hardly a remedy, as we have already observed in our judgment dated 07.10.2016 in W.P.No.35514 of 2016 (S.Edison vs. Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and others) that the recourse to Section 113-C of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is illusionary in the absence of rules and regulations.
7. We are informed that the second respondent/Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, has sealed the entire building on 5.12.2016 itself and issued further notices in accordance with law. In order to complete the action, it is stated that three weeks more time may be granted.
8. We take the aforesaid statement on record and accordingly close the contempt petition with liberty to revive if the action is not completed.
List for compliance on 3.3.2017.