Loading...

A.T.Ganapathi vs The Collector on 12 August, 2010

Madras High Court
A.T.Ganapathi vs The Collector on 12 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:12.08.2010
							
CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
		
W.P.No.10416 of 2010
in
M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2010


A.T.Ganapathi						       .. Petitioner
 
Vs

1.	The Collector,
	Cuddalore District.

2.	The Revenue Divisional Officer,
	Vridhachalam.

3.	The Tahsildar,
	Thittakudi.

4.	The Executive Officer,
	Pennadam Town Panchayat,
	(Special Grade),
	Pennadam, Cuddalore District.

5.	The President,
	Pennadam Town panchayat,
	(Special Grade),
	Pennadam, Cuddalore District.		.. Respondents

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the fourth respondent in his Na.Ka.No.A2/073/2010, dated 23.04.2010 and consequently restrain the respondents and their agents by an order of permanent injunction from demolishing any construction raised by the petitioner in the property bearing Natham S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 measuring east-west 37 = feet X north-south 75 feet = 2812 = sq.ft. in Kottai Madil Street, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District.


		For Petitioner 		:  Mr.R.Gururaj
		For RR-1 to 3		:  Mrs.Lita Srinivasan,
 					            Government Advocate
		For R-4			:  Mr.R.Neelakandan
		For R-5			:  Mr.Lakshminarayanan
- - - - -
O R D E R

The petitioner had purchased a vacant site from one Selvaraj by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2007. The vacant site in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 is at Kottai Madil Street, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. As per the sale deed, the land measures east-west 37 = feet and north-south 75 feet. In the sale deed, it is mentioned that there was a pathway and according to the petitioner, it was mistakenly mentioned in the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the revenue records also show wrong entries.

2. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of ‘B’ schedule property. ‘B’ schedule property is 9 ft east-west and 75 ft north-south in the ‘A’ schedule property, that measures 37 = ft east-west and 75 ft north-south. There is also another prayer of mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to rectify the revenue records relating to suit ‘B’ schedule property by removing the entry as ‘Panchayat road or land’ and to show it as petitioner’s private property.

3. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 21.10.2009 to the fourth respondent seeking permission to construct a building in the entire extent of the aforesaid land. The fourth respondent returned the said application stating that an interim application to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed and the same is pending and therefore, the application seeking permission to commence the work could not be granted.

4. As the fourth respondent returned the application, the petitioner filed an appeal on 26.11.2009 to the first respondent presuming that the first respondent is the Appellate Authority. The first respondent failed to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.681 of 2010 before this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to dispose the appeal. This Court passed an order directing the first respondent to pass orders on the appeal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The first respondent passed an order on 13.04.2010 remanding the matter to the fourth respondent and the petitioner was directed to approach the fourth respondent.

5. According to the petitioner, the order of the first respondent is illegal. Being a statutory authority, the first respondent should have signed the order but the order did not have the signature. Further, it is stated that the first respondent ought not to have delegated his work to the fourth respondent, his subordinate. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order is null and void.

6. The petitioner further states that the fourth and fifth respondents along with a band of people had demolished the compound wall put up by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner was attacked by hooligans on 06.03.2010 causing grievous injuries.

7. Based on the order of the first respondent dated 13.04.2010, the fourth respondent sent a notice dated 20.04.2010 informing the petitioner that the blue print submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the F.M.B. sketch and that the street and other buildings around the site were also not noted. The fourth respondent directed the petitioner to rectify the defects and to resubmit the same.

8. The petitioner states that based on the oral permission given by the first respondent, he put up some construction.

9. The fourth respondent issued a notice dated 21.04.2010 under Sections 199, 209 and 317(A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the petitioner not to proceed with the construction, since no permission was granted for construction.

10. Further, the fourth respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.04.2010 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction put up by him within five days. It is stated that the impugned notice was issued under Sections 216(1), (2), 313 and 317 of the Act. The fourth respondent also issued another notice dated 23.04.2010 returning the application dated 21.04.2010 seeking permission to have construction at the aforesaid land. In the said notice, as many as 15 defects were cited.

11. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 23.04.2010 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction and consequently to restrain the respondents from demolishing any construction raised by the petitioner in the property bearing S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 measuring east-west 37 = feet and north-south 75 feet = 2812 = sq.ft. in Kottai Madil Street, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District.

12. Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 12.05.2010 and while ordering notice, interim stay was also granted.

13. The fourth respondent/Executive Officer of the Pennadam Town Panchayat, filed a counter affidavit and also sought to vacate the interim order. The fifth respondent/President of the Pennadam Town Panchayat also filed a counter affidavit and he has filed an application to vacate the interim order.

14. Heard Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Mr.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

15. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner gave an application seeking permission to have construction in his land on 21.10.2009. It is also admitted that the same was returned. Therefore, the petitioner made an appeal to the first respondent on 26.11.2009 as the fourth respondent returned his application. On 13.04.2010, the first respondent remanded the matter to the fourth respondent to decide the issue. Pursuant to the remand order, on 20.04.2010, the fourth respondent returned the application citing certain defects. Again, the petitioner represented the same immediately. It was again returned on 23.04.2010 citing as many as 15 defects. Hence, admittedly there was no permission from the fourth respondent to the petitioner to commence construction work in the site.

16. But the petitioner proceeded with construction work. The learned counsel for the petitioner himself admits that some construction was put up apart from the compound wall. It is sought to be justified that the first respondent gave oral permission to commence construction work.

17. According to him, the Council is the appropriate authority to decide the matter, if the fourth respondent refused to act. Since the Council failed to pass an order based on his application within a month under Section 202 of the Act, he is deemed to have been granted permission to commence construction work.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act do not provide for demolition of construction, besides submitting that the construction was carried out based on oral permission. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 216 of the Act contemplates only giving notice to the person, who put up unauthorized construction violating the rules, to remove the same. If the person fails to demolish the building pursuant to the notice, the fourth respondent can have no power under Section 216 of the Act to demolish the building. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no other provision in the Act empowering the fourth respondent to demolish an unauthorized construction. According to him, at the most, the fourth respondent could institute a criminal case and get the petitioner punished under Section 317 of the Act. Likewise, the fourth respondent could impose fine under Sections 338 and 339 of the Act for not carrying out the direction of the fourth respondent to demolish the unauthorized construction.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the fourth respondent returned the application seeking permission to have construction by way of a notice dated 23.04.2010, the petitioner resubmitted the same on 18.05.2010. The fourth respondent did not choose to pass any orders on the petitioner’s application. Since the fourth respondent did not choose to pass orders within 30 days as contemplated under Sections 200 and 201 of the Act, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.07.2010 to the Pennadam Town Panchayat Council by registered post and the same was received by the Council on 12.07.2010. As per Section 202 of the Act, the Council has to pass an order within 30 days either granting or refusing permission to execute the work. If no order is passed within 30 days, permission is deemed to have been granted. In view of the deeming provision under Section 202 of the Act, according to the petitioner that the construction already put up by him is regularised.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that in view of the ex-parte decree granted by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, the respondents herein could not interfere with the petitioner’s possession. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (1) L.W. 304 (Baldev Singh Vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and others). The learned counsel also relies on another Judgment reported in 2008 (2) TLNJ 653 (Civil) (The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the District Collector, Kamarajar District, Virudhunagar and another Vs. R.P.Patchirajan and another), in support of his plea that merely the revenue records show that there is a pathway that is not sufficient to establish the existence of pathway.

21. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the political parties and various organizations are conducting a series of agitations against the petitioner, who is a sole person, interfering with the peaceful possession of his property contending that the petitioner encroached the pathway. His grievance is that all the political parties and all the authorities are prejudiced against him.

22. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submit that even the petitioner admits that he put up construction without obtaining permission. They have shown photographs also in support of their plea that substantial construction work was done by the petitioner without permission. According to them, the petitioner has committed two illegalities. The first illegality is that he put up construction without getting permission from the competent authority under the Act i.e., without getting permission from the fourth respondent, he started commencing construction work. The learned counsels also have brought to my notice the admission made by the petitioner in the affidavit itself and also the prayer in the writ petition, in this regard. Therefore, according to them, the impugned order directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction is perfectly legal.

23. The second illegality is that the petitioner has encroached into a public path that has been used by the public for so many decades. It is stated that the lane is used by the public to reach the old bus stand at Thittakudi and that the petitioner has encroached on the lane. That is why, all the political parties and various organizations and public are agitating against the encroachment made by the petitioner on the pathway. According to the respondents 4 and 5, the land in S.No.353/15 is the pathway and the land in S.No.577/7 is the drainage area. The petitioner has encroached upon the public pathway in S.No.353/15 and also the drainage area in S.No.577/7. The learned counsels have brought to my notice that the pathway is on the western side of the land that is purchased by the petitioner from one Mr.Selvaraj. According to the learned counsels, in the very sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, it is made clear that there exists a pathway on the western side of the land purchased. The petitioner could not encroach into the pathway. Since he had made encroachment, the fourth respondent being the competent authority to remove the encroachment under Section 182 of the Act, issued the impugned notice. They have also brought to my notice Section 180 of the Act that prohibits obstruction over the streets. The action of the petitioner, according to the respondents 4 and 5, in encroaching over the public road and also putting up some construction resulted in a series of protests by the local public and various organizations. In fact, they have also brought to my notice the suit filed by the public in O.S.No.54 of 2010 under order 1 Rule 8 questioning the encroachment made by the petitioner over the public road. The plaint in the said suit is enclosed in the additional typeset of the petitioner.

24. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 vehemently contend that a person, who have put up illegal and unauthorized construction, could not say that deemed permission to proceed with the construction was granted under Section 202 of the Act. It is also argued that the subject matter of the writ petition is about the unauthorized construction. When the matter is seized by this Court and also when the petitioner had obtained an interim order, the respondents did not want to pass any orders on the petitioner’s application as otherwise it would be interpreted as committing contempt of Court.

25. The learned counsels have also brought to my notice Sections 162 and 167 of the Act and the action of the petitioner is in contravention of those Sections. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submit that the plea of the petitioner that the Act nowhere provides power to the fourth respondent to demolish unauthorized construction, deserves to be rejected. According to them, Section 216 itself grants power to the fourth respondent for demolition of unauthorized construction. Launching of prosecution and charging of fine are in addition to the removal of unauthorized construction.

26. The learned Government Advocate representing respondents 1 to 3 submits that grant of oral permission for construction is unheard of. She also points out that even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent is not the competent authority under the Act and therefore there is no question of the first respondent granting oral permission would arise.

27. The learned Government Advocate submits that pursuant to the application of the fourth respondent with prescribed fee to measure the public street in S.No.353/15 and also the drainage place in S.No.577/7 in Pennadam made to the Assistant Director, Land Survey, the Assistant Director had surveyed the place and gave a report dated 18.05.2010. The learned Government Advocate has also produced before me the application dated 10.05.2010 made by the fourth respondent and the report of the Assistant Director, Land Survey dated 18.05.2010. According to the report of the Assistant Director, Land Survey, the petitioner has encroached into the public path and also the drainage place.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in reply that the survey was conducted behind his back and the same is thus not binding on him.

29. I have considered the submissions made on either side.

30. Admittedly, the petitioner had put up substantial construction. While he approached this Court, there is an admission in the affidavit itself in paragraph No.14, which reads as follows:-

“One portion was constructed on oral permission by first respondent considering the fluid situation at the site since respondents 4 and 5 themselves have whipped up the public against me deliberately.”

31. The prayer in the writ petition also makes it clear about the unauthorized construction put up by the petitioner in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 measuring east-west 37 = feet and north-south 75 feet = 2812 = sq.ft. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 have shown various photographs and those photographs make it clear that the petitioner made substantial construction. The petitioner had also put up compound wall, apart from those constructions. He had also put up some pillars on the disputed pathway. In fact, as stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that some construction was put up by the petitioner. But, he seeks to justify the same that construction was put up based on the oral permission from the first respondent. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the plea of the oral permission from the first respondent for construction could deserve no acceptance. Likewise, I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a deeming permission under Section 202 of the Act, particularly when the matter is seized of by this Court.

32. In these circumstances, the issue is whether the fourth respondent has power to demolish the unauthorized construction. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has no power under the Act to demolish unauthorized construction. According to the petitioner, Section 216 contemplates only issuance of notice directing the person, who put up unauthorized construction, to remove the same. If the person, who put up unauthorized construction, failed to remove the same, the only option available to the fourth respondent is to launch a criminal prosecution and also to impose fine for not complying with his direction. This is the crux of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

33. Section 216 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 is extracted hereunder:-

“216. Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.- (1) If the [executive authority] is satisfied –

“(i) that the construction or reconstruction of any building [or well]-

(a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the [executive authority] or (where an appeal or reference has been made to the council) in contravention of any order passed by the council; or

(b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or particulars on which such permission or order was based; or

(c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or by-law made under this Act or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act or such rules or by-laws, or

(ii) that any alterations required by any notice issued under Section 205 have not been duly made; or

(iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose, in, to or upon any building, has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in breach of section 215 ,
he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the builder to demolish the work done or so much of it as, in the opinion of the [executive authority], has been unlawfully executed or to make such alterations as may in the opinion of the [executive authority] be necessary to bring the work into conformity with the Act, by-laws, rules, direction or requisition as aforesaid, or with the plans and particulars on which such permission or order was based, and may also direct that until the said order is complied with the owner or builder shall refrain from proceeding with the building or well.

(2) The [executive authority] shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner of the building or well together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed.

(3) If the owner fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the [executive authority], the [executive authority may confirm the order with any modification he may think fit to make, and such order shall, then, be binding on the owner.”

34. I am not in agreement with the interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Section 216 of the Act. Then, there is no purpose of having Section 216 of the Act itself. Section 216 of the Act contemplates that at the first instance, the concerned person should be put on notice and he should be given an opportunity to remove the unauthorized construction. If the person refuses to remove the unauthorized construction by himself, the fourth respondent, local authority has no option except to remove the unauthorized construction by taking suitable action.

35. Sections 317, 338 and 339 of the said Act, which are relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

“317.Penalty for unlawful building.- If the construction or re-construction of any building or well-

(a) is commenced without the permission of the [executive authority], or

(b) is carried on or completed otherwise than in accordance with the particulars on which such permission was based, or

(c) is carried on or completed in contravention of any lawful order or in breach of any provision contained in this Act or in any rule or by-law made hereunder or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made, or
if any alterations or additions required by any notice issued under Section 205 or Section 215 are not duly made, or
if any person to whom a direction is given by the [executive authority] to alter or demolish a building or well under Section 216 fails to obey such direction,
the owner of the building or well or the said person, as the case may be, shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend in the case of a building to five hundred rupees and in the case of a well or hut to fifty rupees, and to a further fine which may extend in the case of a building to one hundred rupees, and in the case of a well or hut to ten rupees, for each day during which the offence is proved to have continued after the first day.

338. Consequences of failure to obtain licences, etc., or of breach of the same.- If, under this Act, or any rule, by-law or regulation made under it, the licence or permission of the council or [executive authority] or registration in the municipal office is necessary for the doing of any act, and if such act is done without such licence or permission or registration, or in a manner inconsistent with the terms of any such licence or permission, then –

(a) the [executive authority] may, by notice, require the person so doing such act to alter, remove, or, as far as practicable, restore to its original state the whole or any part of any property, movable or immovable, public or private, affected thereby, within a time to be specified in the notice and further,

(b) if no penalty has been specially provided in this Act for so doing such act, the person so doing it shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for every such offence.

339. Time for complying with order and power to enforce in default.- (1) Whenever by any notice, requisition, or order under this Act, or under any rule, by-law or regulation made under it, any person is required to execute any work or to take any measures or do anything a reasonable time shall be named in such notice, requisition or order within which the work shall be executed, the measures taken, or the thing done.

(2) If such notice, requisition, or order is not complied with within the time so named, the [executive authority] may cause such work to be executed or may take any measures or do anything which may, in his opinion, be necessary for giving due effect to the notice, requisition or order as aforesaid; and further,

(3) if no penalty has been specially provided in this Act for failure to comply with such notice, the said person shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for every such offence.”

36. In my view, the actions provided, under Sections 317, 338 and 339 of the Act, are apart from the demolition of unauthorized construction under Section 216 of the Act. The petitioner is not correct in saying that the fourth respondent could only impose some fine and also initiate criminal prosecution that would result in punishment under Section 317 of the Act. The fourth respondent has power and jurisdiction under Section 216 of the Act to demolish unauthorized construction, besides taking action under Sections 338 and 339 of the Act.

37. The next issue is about the encroachment made by the petitioner on the public path. According to the petitioner, he has not encroached into the public path. According to him, it is his own land that was purchased in the year 2007 from one Mr.Selvaraj. But according to the respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner had encroached into the public path in S.No.353/15 and in the drainage place in S.No.577/7. It is a factual issue as to whether the petitioner had encroached into the public path. The petitioner seeks to rely on the ex-parte decree in his favour for his occupation of the public path. In my view, the ex-parte decree is confined to the land in S.No.353/1, 2, 5 and 12. The respondents have no objection for occupation of the land by the petitioner in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 and their objection is about the occupation of the public path. Hence, the respondents 4 and 5, had made a suggestion to leave the disputed place measuring 9 feet and 75 feet temporarily as a vacant place for the use of public as the same was used for a long time, pending decision of the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner and he could put up construction in the remaining area. But the said suggestion was rejected by the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner himself admits categorically that the public are using this portion of the land measuring 9 feet x 75 feet as a lane for reaching the bus stand. The petitioner also admits that there is lot of protest from the public against his occupation of the lane. It is also admitted by the petitioner himself that the public, various political parties and other organizations are conducting so many programes against him for occupying the public path.

38. More over, the fourth respondent made an application to the Assistant Director of Land Survey to find out whether the petitioner encroached into public path S.No.315/15 and drainage place in S.No.577/7 in Pennadam Town, by conducting survey of the land. It is stated in the application that law and order problem has arisen due to the unauthorized occupation of pathway, survey of the pathway is necessary. The Assistant Director conducted survey and submitted his report.

39. I have perused the report of the Assistant Director. The concluding portion of the said report reads as follows:-

“jhd; fpiuak; bgWk; nghJ jw;nghija rh;nt vz; mst[fs; kw;Wk; tp!;jpudj;ij rhpghh;j;J fpiuak; bgwhky; jdJ gj;jpu mst[fspd;go g[yr;Rtoapy; jpUj;jk; bra;tJ vd;gJ ,ayhj fhhpakhFk; vd;gija[k; jw;nghJ rh;nt vz; 353/15 d; bjd;g[wk; rh;nt vz; 353/14 d; bjw;nf fpHf;F gf;fk; xw;iw br’;fy; Rth; K:yk; mjid bjhlh;e;J fpHf;F gf;fk; rpbkz;l; fyit gp;y;yh; K:yKk; rh;nt vz; 577/7 d; nkw;F gFjpapy; Rkhh; 6 mo cauKs;s br’;fy; jLg;g[ Rth; kw;Wk; rh;nt vz; 577/1 d; bjw;F kw;Wk; 577/8 d; tlf;F gFjpa[k; ,iza[k; fpHf;F gFjpapy; K:’;fpy; gly; mikj;Jk; Mf;ukpg;g[ bra;Js;shh; vd;gija[k; jdf;F brhe;jkpy;yhj gFjpia Mf;fpukpj;Js;s gFjpapy; cs;s Mf;ukpg;ig mfw;wp re;J kw;Wk; rhf;fil fHpt[ vd gjpt[ bra;Js;sthW epiy epWj;jyhk; vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;.”

40. The report categorically states that the petitioner encroached into S.No.353/15 and S.No.577/7, both are public lands. If the petitioner encroached the public street, the fourth respondent has power to remove the encroachment under Section 182 of the Act.

41. Section 182 of the said Act, is extracted hereunder:-

“182. Removal of encroachments.- ( 1) The [executive authority] may, by notice, require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street.

(2) If the owner or occupier of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give any person a prescriptive title thereto or that it was erected or made with the permission or licence of any municipal authority duly empowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any, for which the permission or licence is valid has not expired, the municipal council shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same.”

Likewise, the fourth respondent has power to prohibit the construction over the street, under Section 180 of the Act.

42. Section 167 of the Act is also extracted hereunder:-

167. Buildings not to be constructed within street alignment or building line.- (1) No person shall construct any portion of any building within a street alignment defined under Section 166.

(2) No person shall erect or add to any building between a street alignment and a building line defined under Section 166 except with [the] permission of the [executive authority] who may when granting [the] permission impose such conditions as the council may lay down for such cases.”

The action of the petitioner is also in contravention of Section 167 of the Act.

43. Since the Assistant Director of Town Survey found that the petitioner encroached into the S.No.353/15 and S.No.577/7, the fourth respondent is entitled to remove the encroachment by exercising his power under Section 182 of the Act and other provisions referred to above.

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J.

Jrl

44. In these circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

12.08.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
jrl

To

1. The Collector,
Cuddalore District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vridhachalam.

3. The Tahsildar,
Thittakudi.

4. The Executive Officer,
Pennadam Town Panchayat,
(Special Grade),
Pennadam, Cuddalore District.

5. The President,
Pennadam Town panchayat,
(Special Grade),
Pennadam, Cuddalore District.

W.P.No.10416 of 2010

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information