S.Mohamed Ali Jinnah vs Chief Secretary And Others

G.R.Swaminathan, J

The petitioner claims to run a small hotel measuring 160.8 sq.mts., in T.S.No.5/1C and 5/1B in Ward No.C, Block No.1, Shanmugapuram, Kodaikanal Town. He would claim    tha permission for putting up the building was given by the fifth respondent on 08.06.2012 vide B.A.No.67/2012/F1 and B.L.No. 77/2012/F1. According to the petitioner, he did not make any construction in terms of B.L.No.67/2012/F1 and construction was made only in terms of B.L.No.77/2012/F1. The petitioner concedes in the affidavit that the building constructed by him as per B.L.No. 77/2012/F1 was put to commercial purpose. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority rightly issued a notice under Sections 56 and 57 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. It was followed by a formal order dated 08.08.2017 informing the petitioner that the building will be locked and sealed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The same was rejected on 02.11.2017. It is challenged in this writ petition.

2.We carefully considered the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for permission to put up a residential building. But contrary to the same, a commercial building was put up. The building is located in a residential zone. There has been 100% violation as regards zone regulations are concerned. Even set back has not been left. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition does not warrant any interference.

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 Petitions are closed.