AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R. Swaminathan, J
The petitioner and others purchased six cents of land in T.S.No.17 in Kodaikanal Municipality. They put up a residential construction. It is named as "D.R.Apartments'". It comprises eight houses. The petitioner's case is that it was not put to any commercial use. While so, the second respondent local planning authority issued notice to the petitioner under Section 217 (J) (1) of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 1992 on 06.03.1998. The stand of the second respondent in the said notice was that without getting approval, the entire construction has been put up. A confirmation order was also later passed on 23.11.2007. A consequential notice dated 06.04.2009 was issued by the Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality.
2.Notice dated 07.07.2015 was issued under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner and other apartment owners submitted their reply on 18.08.2015. This was followed by filing of W.P.(MD)No.16408 of 2015. It was dismissed for default on 28.09.2015. But the connected writ petitions filed by the other apartment owners was disposed on 07.10.2015 with liberty to move the Government and the authorities were restrained from taking coercive action till the disposal of the review petition. The petitioner's review petition was taken up by the Government and dismissed on 27.10.2015. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. Of course the petitioner did not move this Court immediately. Only when consequential action was taken on 20.11.2017, he came to this Court.
3.It cannot be the dispute that the following violations are present:-
Sl. No
Details
Required as per MASTER PLAN
Required as per Hill Station Building Rule
As per Site
% if Violation
1.
Zone Specification
Sparse Residential
---
9 flats Constructed
More than one residential is not permitted
2.
Plot Extent
1000 sq.m
95%
243 Sqm
75.7%
3.
No. of Floors
G+1
G+1
BF-1+BF-2 +GF
100%
4.
Height of the Building
7m
7m
9.70 m
38.5%
5.
Roof of the Floor
Gable Roof
Gable roof
Gable roof
--
6.
Front Set Back
15 m
1.30 m
--
100%
7.
Side Set Back - 1
4.50 m
---
1.40 m
68.8%
8.
Side Set Back - 1
4.50 m
---
1.40 m
68.8%
9.
Rear set back
6 m
---
1 m
83.3%
10.
Open Space
70%
25%
32%
54%
11.
Plot coverage
30%
75%
68%
126%
12.
Car Parking
--
85 Sq. Mt
Only 3 Nos. of parking space provided.
Insufficient space
4.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Country and Planning Act are not applicable to Kodaikanal region. The petitioner's counsel would therefore contend that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Such a contention was taken before Division Bench of this Court earlier in W.P.(MD)Nos.5135 and 8630 of 2017. By an order dated 22.09.2017, the said writ petitions were dismissed and it was held that the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972) is very much applicable to Kodaikanal region. In this view of the matter, We are of the view that no interference is called for.
5.However, we have to take note of the subsequent developments. A modified master plan has come into existence. We therefore permit the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the authority concerned. It is open to the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's case and proceed strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioner's building can fit in with the new master plan and the planning and building norms, subject to terms that may be imposed by the authorities, the petitioner's building can escape from demolition. If the authorities insist on making structural alterations and changes, the petitioner is bound to make the same. The petitioner cannot flout the planning norms and demand that he should be allowed to keep the building intact. Of-course, the respondents will not demolish the petition mentioned building, till orders are passed on the petitioner's representation. If the petitioner had not already made an application, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the authority concerned within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner's application shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months. Till then, the order impugned in the writ petition will be kept in abeyance. If any order is passed on the petitioner's application, the impugned proceedings will certainly abide by the said out come. Of-course, till such orders are passed, the status quo that is prevailing as on date shall continue.
6.The petitioner's building should be in tune and conformity with the planning norms. The authorities cannot pass any stereotyped order. It will vary from case to case. The authorities have to conduct a spot inspection and consider the petitioner's case in the light of the revised master plan. They will have to issue fresh proceeding. The authorities will have to ensure that the petitioner's building is in consonance with every rule and law of the land. There should be periodical inspection. If the authorities fail to ensure conformity of the petitioner's building with the planning norms, the authorities will be liable to be proceeded against.
7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.