AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R.Swaminathan, J
The petitioner purchased a property in Survey No.46 (R.S.No.349), Kodaikanal in the year 2007.According to the petitioner, his vendor had put up a building pursuant to the approval granted by the local body on 15.03.1988. While so, the fourth respondent issued notice dated 29.04.2015 under Section 217 (J) of Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. On 25.06.2015, an order of confirmation was passed. The petitioner filed a review petition under Section 217 (K) of the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 before the Government. By order dated 21.09.2015 the petitioner's review petition was dismissed. It was followed by consequential action taken under Sections 56 and 57 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 vide proceedings dated 27.10.2017. The same is under challenge in this writ petition.
2.It is not 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
Commercial Use Zone
--
Commercial / Office
Nil
2.
Plot Extent
200 sqm
95 sqm
574 sqm
Nil
3.
No. of Floors
G+1
BF+GF+FF
50%
4.
Height of the Building
7 m
7 m
10 m
43%
5.
Roof of the Floor
Gable Roof
Gable Roof
Gable Roof
Nil
6.
Front Set Back
6.00 m
---
6.00 m
Nil
7.
Side Set Back - 1
2.00 m
---
4.50 m
Nil
8.
Side Set Back - 1
2.00 m
---
Nil
1005
9.
Rear set back
2.00 m
---
15.00 m
Nil
10.
Open Space
50%
25%
53%
Nil
11.
Plot coverage
50%
---
47%
Nil
12.
Car Parking
---
85 Sq. Mt
Parking space provided
---
Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition.
3.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.
4.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.
5.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.