Madras High Court
K.M.Ganesh vs The Executive Engineer on 12 October, 2023
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.36623 of 2019
K.M.GANESH ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Executive Engineer,
Zone -X, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.117, N.S.K. Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Unit -29, zone- X,
Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.117, N.S.K. Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
3. Junior Engineer,
Division -128, Unit -29,
Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.117, N.S.K. Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
4. THE CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Egmore, Chennai.
(R4 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT 18.07.2023 MADE IN
WP.35703/2019 BY JNBJ, NMJ)
... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned notice in Notice No. 10/00594/2019 dated 10.12.2019 on the file of
the respondents, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not
to take any further action of locking and sealing of the building at No.22,
Mariamman Koil Street, West K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhan
For Respondents : Mr.G.T.Subramanian
Standing Counsel for RR1 to 3
Mr.C.N.Vinobha
Standing Counsel for R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.,)
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned notice in Notice No.
10/00594/2019 dated 10.12.2019 on the file of the respondents, quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents not to take any further action of
locking and sealing of the building at No.22, Mariamman Koil Street, West
K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
2.It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner's mother – Indira
Kumarappan had purchased the property situated in Plot Nos.9, 9A and 10A,
comprised in Survey No.206/2, 206/3 and 207/1 T.S.No.77 at
Virugambakkam Village, Guindy – Mambalam Taluk, vide sale deed dated
11.05.1987, 31.05.1987, 03.06.1987 and 31.03.1987. Thereafter, petitioner's
mother obtained building plan approval in the year 1997 vide approval
No.524/1997 dated 31.01.1997 for the ground and first floor. After obtaining
necessary approval, petitioner's mother constructed the building consists of
ground and first floor, in the year 1997 itself. While so, the petitioner's mother
died on 07.07.2011, intestate leaving the petitioner's father and his sisters as
her legal heirs and they jointly enjoyed the property. Subsequently, in the year
2015, the other legal heirs had executed the release deed dated 31.06.2015 in
favour of the petitioner and hence the petitioner became the absolute owner of
the above mentioned land and building.
3.Since the petitioner interested in sports activities, he developed a
shuttle cock ground in the vacant second floor space. In order to prevent the
air flow, which hampering the ball movement, the petitioner had raised a
temporary structure for the shuttle cock ground, which was objected by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
petitioner's neighbour flat owner, due to jealousy. On his representation and
influence, the respondents herein had caused a notice under Sections 56 & 57
of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
4.Aggrieved over the above said notice, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal before the Government and the same was disposed vide order dated
21.02.2017, stating as follows:-
“........4.It is also observed that the building
is stated to be existence since 1997 and the
building contains violation in respect of planning
parameters viz., setbacks, floor area etc.,.
5.Therefore, the Government after careful
consideration hereby reject the appeal of
Thiru.K.M.Ganesh against the Locking & Sealing
and Demolition Notice issued by Corporation of
Chennai without affecting his right to apply for
regularisation of his building under 113 – C of
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
as and when the rules are notified........”
5.As against the order of appeal, the petitioner has filed an application
under Section 113 – C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
1971 (in short “the Act”) for regularisation before the The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai/ 4th respondent and
the same is pending. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7.It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an application for
regularisation u/s.113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,
before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority/ 4 th respondent in the
year 2019 itself. In the meantime, the Government Order permitting
regularisation is set aside by this Court and now, the matter is subjudice
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent relied
on the judgment of this court dated 27.07.2023 in W.P.No.9725 of 2017 and
prayed this court to take a similar view in this matter.
9.The Hon'ble First Bench of this court in W.P.No.9725 of 2017 by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
order dated 27.07.2023 [K.Perumal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the
Secretary to Government and others], while dealing with the writ petitions
seeking directions to enforce the locking and sealing and demolition notice,
held as under:-
“3.We have disposed of other writ petitions,
with an observation that, “if subsequently after the
orders are passed by the Apex Court and the
petitioners have any remedy open, they are entitled
to agitate the same afresh. In that event, all
contentions are kept open”. We have observed that
the parties may take steps pursuant to the judgment
of the Apex Court.
4.In case, after the judgment of the Apex
Court, if it is found that the fifth respondent is not
entitled for regularisation, then the petitioner may
agitate afresh.”
10.In view of the fact that the matter regarding regularization is seized
of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to
await the orders of the Supreme Court. The petitioner is entitled to agitate the
issue afresh after the orders are passed by the Supreme Court, on the subject
matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(J.N.B,J.) (N.M, J.)
Index : Yes / No 12.10.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Jer
To
1. The Executive Engineer,
Zone -X, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.117, N.S.K. Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Unit -29, zone- X,
Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.117, N.S.K. Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
3.The Junior Engineer,
Division -128, Unit -29,
Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.117, N.S.K. Salai,
Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024
4. THE CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/8
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.MALA,J.
Jer
W.P.No.35703 of 2019
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/8
