Madras High Court
Z.Jesima Begum vs The Deputy Director Of Town & on 6 September, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.09.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).No.12798 of 221
Z.Jesima Begum ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy Director of Town &
Country Planning,
Pudukottai Town and Country Planning
Authority,
Plot No.282, Periyar Nagar,
Railway Station Road,
Pudukottai. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to
the impugned order made by the respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.622/2021/PU.MA dated 22.06.2021 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently grant approval to the petitioner's development in
light of the order made by this Hon'ble Court in W.P(MD).No.22867 of
2019 dated 2503.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.154, Housing and Urban
Development UD4(3) Department dated 13.10.2020 within the time that
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.P.Subbaraj, Counsel for State.
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an order dated 22.06.2021 of the
respondent by which the petitioner's application dated 24.03.2021 was
rejected.
2. The petitioner states that he owns land measuring about 353.03
square metres in Survey No.8598/1 to 4, Pudukottai Town, Pudukottai
District. Such property was let on lease to a proprietorship service
namely I-Carz Service Centre. In W.P(MD).No.22867 of 2019, the
petitioner's tenant was arrayed as the eighth respondent. The said writ
petition related to encroachment by some of the other respondents therein
and alleged unauthorized construction by the eighth respondent. The
eighth respondent submitted before the Division Bench of this Court that
he had submitted an application for plan sanction before the relevant
planning authority. On such basis, the planning authority was directed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
judgment dated 25.03.2021 to pass appropriate orders on the application
for plan sanction.
3. The petitioner draws reference to the impugned order and points
out that the judgment of the Division Bench was completely
misconstrued. While the Division Bench directed the respondent to
consider the application for plan sanction, the respondent directed the
petitioner to approach the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing
and Urban Development Department under Section 80A.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to the
application submitted by the petitioner and points out that such
application is under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971. Therefore, he submits that such application should
have been considered and disposed of on merits. Instead, the respondent
erroneously directed the petitioner to approach the Principal Secretary
under Section 80A, which relates to removal of lock and seal. It is
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the request for removal of lock
and seal would be made to the authority concerned once the application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
for plan sanction is decided.
5. Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent. He submits that the matter may be remitted for
reconsideration by taking into account the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such
impugned order has been passed by completely misconstruing the nature
of the petitioner's application before the respondent. Both on the basis of
the application under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971 and on the basis of the Division Bench judgment
dated 25.03.2021, the respondent was required to consider and dispose of
the application. Instead, the respondent completely misunderstood the
scope of the petitioner's application and directed the petitioner to
approach the Principal Secretary under Section 80A. As such, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. As a
corollary, the matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration of
the petitioner's application dated 24.03.2021. The respondent is directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
to reconsider the same by taking into account the judgment of the
Division Bench in W.P(MD).No.22867 of 2019 and pass a reasoned
order thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
7. W.P(MD).No.15891 of 2021 is disposed of on these terms
without any order as to costs.
06.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
To
The Deputy Director of Town &
Country Planning,
Pudukottai Town and Country Planning
Authority,
Plot No.282, Periyar Nagar,
Railway Station Road,
Pudukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
pkn
W.P.(MD)No.15891 of 2021
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
