AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R.Swaminathan, J
The petitioner purchased the property in T.S.No.38/2, Observatory Road, Kodaikanal Town.
2.The petitioner' family put up a construction in the said site. After getting planning approval and building permission, they are running a hotel in the name and style of 'Abirami Residency'. While so, the second respondent issued notice dated 31.05.2016 under the provisions of Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act alleging that the construction is in deviation of the approved plan. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Government. The review petition was dismissed, on 17.02.2017 Questioning the same, this 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 Violations
1.
Zone as per Master Plan and land use
Mixed Residential Zone
-
Commercial
100%
2.
Plot Extent
500 Sqm
95 Sqm
506 Sqm
-
3.
No.of Floor
G+1
G+1
BF+GF+FF +SF
100%
4.
Height of the Building
7 m
7 m
12 m
71%
5.
Top of the Floor
Top of the Floor
Gable Roof
Flat
-
6.
Front Set Back
6.0 m
1.3 m
2.20 m
63%
Side Set Back-1
3.0 m
-
-
100%
Side Set Back-2
3.0 m
-
4.10
-
Rear Set Back-1
3.0 m
-
0.50 m
83%
7.
Open Space
60%
25%
19%
68%
8.
Plot Coverage
40%
75%
81%
102%
9.
Car Parking
-
-
Not provided
4.The petitioner, after getting approval for putting up a residential building has chosen to construct a commercial building and used it as such. There are deviations from the approved plan. The petitioner claims that he was not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order. But in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that on 19.01.2017, a personal hearing was conducted and the writ petition's son Ganesh Prabu attended and offered his objections. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention. Equally, lacking in substance is the contention that the provisions of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, are not applicable to the Kodaikanal Town. This is because, an earlier Division Bench vide order dated 22.09.20917 in W.P.(MD)Nos.8630 and 5135 of 2017 has held that the provisions of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, are very much applicable to the Kodaikanal Town. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that he obtained commercial electricity connection from the TANGEDCO. In fact, we would fault TANGEDCO for granting commercial electricity connection without bothering to verify, if the applicant is authorised to run a commercial establishment.
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 the 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.With these observations and liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.