J.Elanchezhian vs State Of Tamil Nadu

G.R.Swaminathan, J

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned building. It is being run as a commercial lodging house. It is not in dispute that the District Collector, Dindigul, issued a notice dated 14.11.2007 alleging that the construction in question was an unauthorised one. But the notice appears to have been sent to the petitioner's vendor. When the petitioner got the knowledge of the same, he sent a reply on 29.01.2008. The petitioner's stand was that the constructions were made after getting due planning permission and that the petitioner was only a subsequent purchaser in the year 2007.

While so, a fresh notice dated 07.07.2015 was issued under Sections 56 & 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.18172 of 2015. The Writ petition was taken up along with other cases and an order dated 07.10.2015 was passed relegating the petitioner to move the Government under Section 80(A) of the Act. It was directed that Status Quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Government by filing a petition on 22.12.2015. The petitioner's stand is that the said appeal is yet to be disposed of. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's premises were locked and sealed by the third respondent. Challenging the lock and seal notice issued by the third respondent, the Writ petition has been filed.

It is true that the earlier Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 07.10.2015 in W.P.(MD)No.18172 of 2015 had passed the following order:-

"15. In view of the above directions, till the appeals are filed and the interlocutory applications are disposed of by the Government within the time limit indicated, the respondent authorities shall refrain from taking further coercive action. Pending appeal proceedings before the Government, none of the petitioners be entitled to put up any further construction or modification of the buildings or use the buildings in violation of the approved plans."

The petitioner has placed materials indicating the filing of an appeal before the Government. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said appeal was rejected. Therefore, we are of the view that the third respondent is not justified in resorting to coercive action. We therefore quash the lock and seal notice issued by the third respondent.

Even according to the petitioner, some construction in deviation of the plan had been made. The petitioner would however claim that the deviation can be regularised in view of the large extent of land available and that regularization should not be a problem. His further contention is that as per the revised master plan notified for Kodaikanal Local Planning Area in March 2019, the petitioner's premises falls within the Multi Use Zone. But the fact remains that user till date was illegal.

Therefore, even though we have quashed the lock and seal notice, the petitoner cannot utilise the premises for commercial purposes till he obtains formal orders from the competent authority. The authority will make sure that the petitioner's use of the buildings is strictly in tune with the planning norms. If the petitioner has to make some alterations so as to bring the building in tune with the planning norms, the petitioner wil have to do so. The authority will ensure that there is no statutory violation of any kind by the Writ petitioner.

The Writ petition stands allowed, on these terms. But the matter cannot rest there. We have allowed the Writ petition only in view of the earlier direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(MD)No.18172 of 2015 dated 07.10.2015. The Writ petitioner had suffered an adverse order at the hands of the third respondent. He had filed an appeal before the first respondent. It is for the first respondent to dispose of the same in accordance with law and on merits. The petitioner will have to abide by the outcome of the said proceedings. Of course the petitioner can take advantage of the revised master plan that has now come into existence. It is for the first respondent to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with law. Even though we have quashed the lock and seal notice, the petitioner will have to abide by the outcome of the proceedings that are said to be pending before the first respondent. The first respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.