Madras High Court
The Director Of Town And Country ... vs Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute on 20 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Rajappa Nagar,
Thanjavur Region,
Thanjavur District. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute
of Science and Technology Trust,
Represented by Managing Director,
P.Murugesan ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 28.10.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.6331 of
2015.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Saravanakumar
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The Writ Appeal is preferred, challenging the order dated
dated 28.10.2015 passed in W.P(MD)No.6331 of 2015.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The writ petitioner, who is an Educational Institution had
obtained necessary building plan approval from the local body viz.,
Vallam panchayat for certain buildings on 17.05.2007. Thereafter,
applied for planning permission from the second appellant. The
planning permission was granted by letter dated 23.08.2013 with
two conditions that the Institution has to execute a Gift Deed for
Open Space Reservation (OSR) area of 5390 sq. mtrs. along with
approach road and to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the
Public Works Department Authority for construction of a bridge.
The writ petitioner had executed a gift deed in favour of the Town
Panchayat on 17.04.2013, which was duly registered in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
Sub-Registrar Office, Vallam and a copy of the same was handed
over to the second appellant on 26.04.2013. No Objection
Certificate was also obtained from the Public Works Department
pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 11.07.2014 passed in
W.P(MD)No.10581 of 2014. As the two conditions imposed were
complied with by the petitioner, the second respondent had to grant
planning permission to the writ petitioner. However, despite the
same, the second respondent failed to forward the application to the
first respondent for the purpose of granting building plan approval.
Therefore, once again the petitioner had moved this Court in
W.P(MD)No.1694 of 2015 and sought a Mandamus issued on
11.02.2015 to the second appellant to grant building plan approval.
(ii) Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the
second respondent has passed an order in proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.319/2012 dated 07.04.2015, imposing a new condition
that the writ petitioner should apply for fresh planning permission
including for the administrative block and get a technical approval
from the first respondent handing over the approach road to the
local body apart from payment of infrastructure and amenity
charges.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
((iii) Aggrieved by the same, W.P(MD)No.6331 of 2015 was
filed. This Court had allowed the writ petition on 28.10.2015. While
allowing the writ petition, this Court had held that as per
G.O.Ms.No.161 Housing and Urban Development [UD4) (3)] dated
26.06.2013, the writ petitioner need not hand over the Open Space
Reserve area and the same can be kept open to the sky. Being an
Educational Institution, the open space can be utilized only for the
purpose of a park and not as playground and in the technical
approval, the conditions imposed were that a gift deed has to be
executed for the open space, which has already been complied and
'No Objection Certificate' from the Public Works Department was
also obtained by the writ petitioner. But, the order was passed by
the second respondent directing the writ petitioner to hand over the
approach road to the main road to the local body. Therefore, the
learned single Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioner
and held that there was no necessity for the writ petitioner to hand
over the approach road to the main road to the local body and
refusal for building plan approval is in violation of the said
G.O.Ms.No.161 Housing and Urban Development [UD4) (3)] dated
26.06.2013 and allowed the writ petition quashing the order dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
07.04.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the above writ appeal is
preferred by the appellants.
3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants would submit that the respondent had not disclosed the
administrative block while presenting the drawing before the first
appellant for getting building plan approval. Therefore, the
respondent was directed to submit a fresh drawing along with the
left out administrative block for building plan approval before the
first appellant. It is also further contended that G.O.Ms.No.161
Housing and Urban Development [UD4) (3)] dated 26.06.2013, was
issued subsequent to the technical approval issued to the
respondent / writ petitioner on 28.03.2013. Therefore, benefit of
the above said G.O., is not applicable to the respondent as
retrospective effect cannot be ordered.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader would further
submit that even in the order dated 07.04.2015, the second
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
appellant has specifically stated that the Open Space Reserve area
of 5390 sq. mtrs., should have been handed over to the local body,
which has already been done by the respondent by executing a gift
deed on 17.04.2013. The 'required No Objection Certificate' from
the Public Works Department was also obtained by the petitioner.
The only objection raised was that in the building plan submitted for
obtaining planning permission, the administrative block was not
included and hence, the respondent was directed to include the
administrative block and submit a revised plan for the purpose of
getting planning permission from the appellants.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that as early as on 17.05.2007, planning permission
was given to the respondent by Vallam panchayat vide proceedings
in Order No.B.R.A.10/07, ROC.No.142/2007 and when already a
separate building permission has been obtained from the competent
authority viz., the local body in the year 2007, the appellants cannot
demand for including the plan for the administrative block and file a
revised plan once again in this regard.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
invited attention of this Court to the decision in Tamil Nadu Unaided
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
Polytechnic Management Association (Regd. No.117/12) rep. by its
President v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to
Government, Housing and Urban Development Department,
Chennai and others reported in 2018(4) CTC 129.
8. As per the said decision, there shall be only one window
where Application for constructions, alteration of all Public buildings
in the panchayat must be made and this will be the Executive
Authority of the Panchayat. It is the Executive Authority, who shall
engage in the Consultative process with the Joint Director or Deputy
Director, Town and Country Planning providing the latter with all
necessary materials and particulars for the latter to form his opinion
and advice. If the Executive Authority finds any arbitrariness or
lack of application of mind by a Consultee viz., the Joint Director or
the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, the local
Authority cannot supersede the opinion of the Authorities of the
Town and Country Planning. While holding so, the Division Bench
finally had declared as follows:
“46. (a)In all such cases, the Executive Authority is
directed to forward the papers to the Town Planning
Authority, who may now consider them, and if required
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
visit the premises in question, and offer his advice if the
constructions have complied with all necessary statutory
Rules and Regulations, and the latter shall forward his
views or opinions to the Executive Authority. If opinions
offered are positive, in that if the constructions are found
to have complied with the Rules and Regulations and
such other legal requirements, then the Executive
Authority shall issue an order ratifying his earlier order
granting his permission. This will apply only to those
public buildings in the Panchayat area constructed after
the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat
Building Rules, 1997 till today, the date of this Order,
and not to any future application for constructions.”
9. As per the above direction, it is for the Executive authority
to direct and forward the papers to the Town and Country Planning
Authority for consideration and whenever a positive opinion is
received, date of permission of the Executive Authority may be
ratified. The cut-off date was given till the date of the said
judgment.
10. Admittedly, in this case, the building plan approval was
granted by the local body as early as on 17.05.2007, which is well
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
within the cut-off date given in the judgment. Therefore, there is no
reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned single Judge
and also in the light of the decision cited above.
11. In view of the same, this writ appeal is dismissed
confirming the order of the learned single Judge. No Costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
20.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1261 of 2013
20.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
