AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R.Swaminathan , J
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in T.S.No. 6/4A, /4B, 7/4A and 7/4B in Convent Road, Kodaikanal. She applied for planning and building permission before the Commissioner of Kodaikanal Municipality and the same was granted on 06.03.2012 However, notice under Section 217(E) (2) of Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, was issued on 20.08.2015 by the Commissioner of Kodaikanal Municipality. Again, she was issued with the notice dated 20.08.2015 under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 by the Kodaikanal Planning Authority. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No. 15670 of 2015. The said writ petition was taken up along with the other similar writ petitions and by order dated 07.10.2015, the petitioner was called upon to move before the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government. But the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 27.01.2016. Questioning the same, the writ petition has been filed.
3.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
% of Violation
1.
Zone Specification
Mixed residential zone
--
Commercia
100%
2.
Plot Extent
500 Sqm
95 Sqm
1012 Sqm
Nil
3.
No.of Floors
G+1
G+1
Basement, Ground and First Floor
100%
4.
Height of the Building
7 m
7 m
9 m
28.50%
5.
Roof of top floor
Gable
Gable
Flat
100%
6.
Front Set Back
6 m
1.3 m
4.4m
26%
7.
Side Set Back-1
3m
--
2.3
23%
8.
Side Set Back-2
3m
--
Nil
100%
9.
Rear Set Back
3m
--
2.1
30%
10.
Open Space
60%
25%
75%
Nil
11.
Plot Coverage
40%
--
25%
Nil
12.
Car Parking
--
--
Car Parking provided
4.In fact, there is no serious challenge to the factual finding rendered by the Government. Probably, that is why, the petitioner has chosen to raise a technical contention that the provisions of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, are not applicable to the kodaikanal Hill station. But the said contention has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2017 in W.P.(MD)Nos.8630 and 5135 of 2017. The petitioner has put up the building in a residential zone. But the building is commercial in character. Thus, the zoning violation is 100%. The other violations have also been noted above. Hence, we are of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition does not call for any interference. 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.
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 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.
6.With these observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.