AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R.Swaminathan, J
The petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style of "Hill View" in Naidupuram, Kodaikanal. While so, the District Collector, Dindigul issued notice dated 20.05.2007 under Section 217 (J) (1) of Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, putting the petitioner on notice that he had put up an unauthorized construction. Confirmation order dated 29.11.2007 was passed. It appear that the petitioner had submitted a review petition on 14.02.2008 to the Government. The petitioner was called upon vide communication dated 27.04.2009 to move the Kodaikanal Municipality for submitting a revised plan. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner submitted a revised plan before the authority. In these circumstances, the action under Sections 56 and 57 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, taken by the Kodaikanal Municipality in September, 2015, the petitioner filed a review petition dated 13.01.2016. It was rejected on 03.03.2016. Consequential action was taken on 20.11.2017. These are under challenge in this writ petition.
It cannot be in 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
EWS
---
Commercial
100%
2.
Plot Extent
40 Sqm
95 Sqm
2390.70 Sqm
---
3.
No. of Floors
G+1
G+1
BF+GF+FF
100%
4.
Height of the Building
7m
7m
9.80 m
40%
5.
Roof of top Floor
Gable Roof
Gable Roof
Gable Roof
---
6.
Front Set Back
1 m
1.3 m
14.25 m
14.25 m
7.
Side Set Back - 1
---
---
---
---
8.
Side Set Back - 1
---
---
15 m
---
9.
Rear set back
--
---
12 m
---
10
0 Open Space
---
25%
89%
---
11.
Plot coverage
---
75%
11%
---
12.
Car Parking
---
---
---
Car parking space provided
3.The petitioner does not claim that he is not guilty of the violation of the planning norms. His prayer is rather for regularization in the light of the modified master plan. Therefore, the orders impugned in this writ petition do not call for any interference.
4.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.
5.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 authorities fail to ensure conformity of the petitioner's building with the planning norms, the authorities will be liable to be proceeded against.
6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.