Madras High Court
M.Sree Krishna vs The Principal Secretary / ... on 19 September, 2023
W.P.No.161 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No. 161 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.154 of 2023
M.Sree Krishna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner
Greater Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Executive Engineer
Zone-III, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.196, Erattaimalai Srinivasan Street, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
3. The Assistant Engineer
Unit-VI, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.196, Erattaimalai Srinivasan Street,
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
4. The Junior Engineer
Division-023, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.1, Thattankulam Salai, Bazaar Salai,
Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.
5. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi-Irvin Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
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
notice in Letter No.3/00068/2022 dated 13.12.2022 issued by the respondents
2 to 4 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to take any
further action in respect of the building door No.148/33, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066, pending disposal of the application dated
29.08.2018 for regularization of the petitioner building.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 19.09.2023 made in W.M.P.No.837/2023 in
W.P.No.161 of 2023)
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondents : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu
Standing counsel for RR1 to 4
Mr.C.N.Vinobha
Standing counsel for R5
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.,)
Challenging the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 issued by the
respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that originally one M.S.Murugan was
the absolute owner of the property in Survey No.447/1A1, measuring an
extent of 1200 sq.ft., at Door No.148/33, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Puzhal,
Chennai – 600 066. Thereafter, the said Murugan obtained necessary planning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
permission from the 5th respondent vide letter dated 26.11.2006 and P.P.No.45
dated 27.12.2006, for construction of a building consisting ground floor and
first floor. However, the said Murugan constructed ground + 3 floors in the
above said property. The said building was constructed on or before
31.05.2007.
3.After the demise of Murugan, his legal heirs sold part of the property
to an extent of 888 sq.ft., with built up area therein to the petitioner under the
sale deed dated 22.05.2013. Remaining portions of vacant property measuring
an extent of 312 sq.ft., was also sold to the petitioner's brother vide sale deed
dated 04.06.2013.
4.While so, on 20.12.2014, the respondents 2 to 4 commonly issued a
notice to the petitioner, calling for approved plan for construction of the said
building. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the plan approval granted by
the 5th respondent and also requested the 5th respondent to revise the planning
permission as per the construction of the building as against the original
approved plan. However, the respondents 2 to 4, without considering the
request made by the petitioner issued Locking & Sealing and Demolition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
notice on 22.12.2014 under Section 56 (3) of the Town and Country Planning
Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').
5.Aggrieved against the said notice, petitioner filed a Writ Petition
before this Court in W.P.No.35010 of 2014 and this Court by an order dated
05.01.2015 disposed of the same, stating as follows:-
“4.In view of the foregoing, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it just and
proper to direct the respondents to take a decision on the
application dated 03.12.2014 made to the third respondent
and also the representation dated 21.12.2014 made to the
respondents 1 and 2, and pass appropriate orders on its
own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The notice dated 22.12.2014 shall not be given effect to till
the aforesaid decision is taken by the respondents. This
writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”
6.During the pendency of the above Writ Petition, the respondents 2 to
4 issued De-occupation notice to the tenants of the property and one of the
tenant filed an appeal under Section 80 A of the Act, before the Government.
In the meanwhile, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.110
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
dated 22.06.2017, wherein the Government framed rules under Section 113-C
of the Act and granted exemption of any building or class of building
developed on or before 01.07.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner made
application before the 5th respondent on 29.08.2018 for regularisation under
Section 113 – C of the Act and the same is pending for consideration.
7.The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would
submit that the matter regarding regularization under Section 113 – C of the
Act, is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further drew attention
of this Court to the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this court in
W.P.No.9725 of 2017 by order dated 27.07.2023 [K.Perumal Vs. The State
of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Secretary to Government and others], wherein it
is 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
is found that the fifth respondent is not entitled for
regularisation, then the petitioner may agitate afresh.”
8.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
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(J.N.B, J.) (N.M, J.)
Index : Yes / No 19.09.2023
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Jer
To
1. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner
Greater Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Executive Engineer
Zone-III, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.196, Erattaimalai Srinivasan Street, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
3. The Assistant Engineer
Unit-VI, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.196, Erattaimalai Srinivasan Street,
Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
4. The Junior Engineer
Division-023, Greater Corporation of Chennai,
No.1, Thattankulam Salai, Bazaar Salai,
Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.
5. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi-Irvin Salai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/8
W.P.No.161 of 2023
J. NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.MALA, J.
Jer
W.P.No.161 of 2023
19.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/8
