G. SATHYANARAYANA BOTHRA Vs. M.D. LOKESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and the first respondent are residents of a building known as 'Indira Arcade'. While the appellants have purchased portion of area on the ground floor to the third floor as well as a portion on the fourth floor, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Indira Foundations Private Limited, the first respondent being the daughter of the owner of the plot on which the building was erected occupies a portion on the second floor of the said building. The grievance of the first respondent is with regard to excess construction/unauthorised construction/ deviations effected at the instance of the appellants on the portions owned by them and also in the building. A direction having been issued by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court [For short, 'the High Court'] to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [For short, 'CMDA'], the second respondent, to remove the unauthorised constructions/deviations by the order dtd. 28/4/2025 in the writ petition preferred by the first respondent, the appellants, being aggrieved have challenged the said order.

(2.) It is not necessary to refer to various factual aspects. Suffice it to state that initially, the father of the first respondent had filed Writ Petition No.21661/2017 before the High Court with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the CMDA to consider his representation dtd. 7/7/2017 in the matter of unauthorised construction undertaken by the appellants. By the order dtd. 28/3/2018, the appellants were directed to rectify the defects in respect of violated portions of the building by 8/6/2018. The writ petition was disposed of but for the purposes of reporting compliance, it was directed to be listed on 22/6/2018. The appellants on 6/6/2018 moved an application for regularisation of the deviations in question. The regularisation was sought under Sec. 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 [For short, 'the Act of 1971'] read with Government Order [For short, 'G.O.'] Nos.110 and 111 dtd. 22/6/2017.

(3.) When the aforesaid writ petition was considered for reporting compliance, an undertaking was filed on behalf of the appellants indicating the action taken by them pursuant to the earlier order. The relevant portion of the order of the High Court dtd. 28/6/2018 reads as under: