NOORUNISHA BEHAM Vs. COMMISSIONER VANIYAMBADI MUNICIPALITY VANIYAMBADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner would contend that she had obtained permission from the first respondent by his proceedings dated 08.03.2010 to put up a construction in her property. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would state that she had obtained permission to put up residential houses. According to the petitioner, on 12.07.2010, the first respondent issued a notice under Sections 205 (1 & 2), 339 (2), 340 (1) and 344 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 on the ground that instead of constructing residential house, she is putting up commercial building. In and by the said notice dated 12.07.2010, the petitioner was asked to show cause within seven days as to why the building permission granted in her favour should not be cancelled. THE petitioner sent a reply on 14.07.2010 requesting the first respondent to grant her time for a period of one week. THEreafter, on 21.07.2010, she sent a reply reiterating that she is putting up construction as per the building permission granted by the first respondent on 19.03.2010. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner is only constructing residential houses and not any other commercial area. According to the petitioner, inspite of such an explanation offered by her, without even conducting any site inspection, the first respondent passed a final order dated 09.08.2010 directing the petitioner to comply with the order of removal of the building. Even after the receipt of the final order dated 09.08.2010, the petitioner had sent a representation dated 11.08.2010 reiterating that she is putting up construction only as per the permission granted by the first respondent and that therefore the building should not be demolished. After submitting such a representation, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to quash the notice dated 12.07.2010 as well as the final order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the first respondent.

(3.) PURSUANT to this order, in the presence of the petitioner, the authorities of the respondents municipality have conducted an inspection on 24.11.2010. The respondents have also filed a rough sketch, which would indicate that the petitioner had constructed seven commercial shops and it was also found that the following deviations have been committed by the petitioner VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED