Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

H.Mahendra Kumar vs 3 The Executive Engineer

Madras High Court|19 September, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3.
2 It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Planning Permission issued by the Corporation of Chennai, vide proceedings No.PPA/WDC05/04899/2015 dated 28.10.2015 and also Building Permit vide proceedings in BA/WDC05/04571/2015 dated 28.10.2015, he had put up the construction and there are some minor deviations for which, the 3rd respondent has issued the Locking and Sealing and Demolition Notice dated 16.11.2016. It is further stated by the petitioner that the deviated portions were also subjected to statutory levies and he made a challenge to the said notice by filing a special revision petition under section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before the 1st respondent herein, viz., the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, and also filed a petition for stay along with the main revision, which was received and acknowledged on 28.12.2016. Though nearly nine months had lapsed, neither the petition for stay nor the main revision petition is taken up for final disposal and taking advantage of the same, the 3rd respondent is proceeding further to demolish the alleged offending construction and therefore, the is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3 This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ; Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.A.Nagarajan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and also perused the materials placed before it. 4 It is relevant to extract the deviations / unauthorized construction pointed out in the notice of the 3rd respondent dated 16.11.2016:- Planning Parameters As per Plan As on site Nature of Deviations Ground Floor Front Set Back 1.53 m Nil Full Deviation Rear Set Back 1.02 m Nil Nil Side Set Back 1 Nil Nil Nil Side Set Back 2 Nil Nil Nil Stilt Floor area [Car Parking] Nil Nil Nil Ground Floor Area 55.35 sq.m.
141.05 sq.m.
85.70 sq.m.
First Floor Front Set Back 1.53 m Nil Full Deviation Rear Set Back 1.02 m Nil Nil Side Set Back 1 Nil Nil Nil Side Set Back 2 Nil Nil Nil Floor Area 105.05 sq.m.
141.05 sq.m.
36 sq.m.
Second Floor Front Set Back 1.53 m Nil Full Deviation Rear Set Back 1.02 m Nil Nil Side Set Back 1 Nil Nil Nil Side Set Back 2 Nil Nil Nil Floor Area 50.37 sq.m.
141.05 sq.m.
90.68 sq.m.
Third Floor [Unauthorised] Front Set Back Nil Nil Full Deviation Rear Set Back Nil Nil Nil Side Set Back 1 Nil Nil Nil Side Set Back 2 Nil Nil Nil Floor Area 0 sq.m.
141.05 sq.m.
141.05 sq.m.
Other Parameters Road Width 11.30 m 11.30 m 0 m Overall Height 8.84 m 11.75 m 3 m Parking Nil Nil Nil Total Built up area 219.88 m 564.20 m 344.32 m Splay Nil Nil Nil FSI 1.50 Nil Full Deviation Plot Coverage 74.48% 100% 25.52% 5 It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises is used purely for residential purpose.
6 This Court, taking into consideration, the limited scope of prayer sought for by the petitioner and without going into the merits of the same, directs the 1st respondent to entertain the special revision petition, received and acknowledged on 28.12.2016 along with the petition for stay, if the papers are otherwise in order and the said official is at option, either to take up the petition for stay and give a disposal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or the main revision itself and give a disposal within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, till the disposal of the petition for stay by the 1st respondent, shall defer further decision in terms of the impugned Locking and Sealing and Demolition Notice dated 16.11.2016.
7 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.N., J.] [N.S.S., J.] 19.09.2017 Internet : Yes NOTE:Issue order copy on 04.10.2017. AP To 1 The Secretary to State, State of Tamil Nadu Housing & Urban Development Department, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.
2 The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings Chennai.
3 The Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation Zone-V, No.61, Basin Bridge Road Chennai 600 021.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J. AND N.SESHASAYEE, J.
AP WP.No.24933/2017 19.09.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

H.Mahendra Kumar vs 3 The Executive Engineer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
19 September, 2017