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 owner of the building comprised in RSNo/T.S.No.56 (Part), 57 & 59 (part), Fern Hill Road, Kodaikanal. He has been running a lodging house in the name and style of 'Skyland Villa'. The kodaikanal planning authority issued a notice dated 07.07.2015 under Sections 56 and 57 r/w Section 85 of the Tamilnadu Town and Planning Act, 1971. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Government. The Government, by order dated 27.01.2016, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.
3.It is not in dispute that the following violations have been found.
Sl.No.
Details
Required as per Master Plan
Required as per Hill Station Building Rule
As per Site
% of Violation
1.
Zone Specification
Primary residential zone
--
Commercial
100%
2.
Plot Extent
250 Sqm
95 Sqm
573 Sqm
Nil
3.
No.of Floors
G+1
G+1
G+2
100%
4.
Height of the Building
7 m
7 m
10m
43%
5.
Roof of top floor
Gable
Gable
Gable
Nil
6.
Front Set Back
3 m
1.3 m
2+6
2
Nil
7.
Side Set Back-1
1.5m
--
9.40 m
Nil
8.
Side Set Back-2
1.5m
--
0.60 m
60%
9.
Rear Set Back
6m
--
2+4
2
50%
10.
Open Space
60%
25%
75%
Nil
11.
Plot Coverage
40%
--
25%
Nil
12.
Car Parking
--
--
Car parking provided.
Nil
4.The petitioner has put up a commercial lodging house in a primary residential zone. Thus, the zoning violation is 100%. The other violations have already been setout above. The only contention raised by the writ petitioner is the very applicability of the aforesaid Act. But a similar contention was raised and rejected in W.P.(MD)Nos.8630 and 5135 of 2017, vide order dated 22.09.2017. 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.
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
rmi
6.With these observations and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.