SUBBURAMAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, ARANTHANGI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

(2.) One R.R.Premkumar has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.16816 of 2018 on the ground that the petitioner herein had unauthorisedly encroached upon the temple property and put up a construction of a marriage hall without obtaining any planning permission or licence. He also filed another writ petition in W.P(MD)No.23716 of 2018 seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 therein to lock and seal the building illegally constructed by the petitioner herein. The same person, on an earlier occasion also, filed W.P(MD)No.4988 of 2018 praying for appropriate orders to remove the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner herein and it was disposed of on 08.03.2018 and in compliance of the said order, the local body, namely, the Commissioner, Aranthangi Municipality, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District, issued appropriate proceedings as to the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner herein.

(3.) The jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer had also passed the proceedings dated 17.04.2018, in and by which, the licence granted to the Marriage Hall was also cancelled. The petitioner herein made a challenge to the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, by filing W.P(MD)No.12205 of 2018 and the said writ petition as well as the writ petitions filed by the said R.R.Premkumar in W.P(MD)Nos.16816 of 2018 and 23716 of 2018 as to the initiation of appropriate action to demolish the said unauthorised construction, were taken up together and disposed of by a common order dated 15.10.2019. The Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, found that no approval could have been granted by the Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk for using the building as a Marriage Hall and accordingly, quashed the said proceedings dated 05.12.2017 and directed to put up lock and seal and also granted liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.