B.SARAVANAN Vs. SECRETARY, HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner, namely, Mr.V.Balasubramaniyam, had settled the land and building situated at Old Survey No.102/1, New Survey No.461/23, Ward No.4, Narasingapuram, Attur Taluk, Salem District, bearing Door No.27, as well as yet another item bearing Door No.43/23, in favour of the petitioner, through a registered Settlement Deed dated 26.03.2012. The petitioner claims to be in occupation and possession of the said properties and they are also subject to statutory levies. The petitioner would state that, originally, Narasingapuram was Panchayat Union and thereafter, got upgraded as Municipality, and the superstructure which is the subject matter of the impugned notice came into being about 20 years back.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, a notice dated 20.11.2020 was issued by the 4 th respondent under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and responding to the same, the petitioner has applied for planning permission to regularise the unauthorised construction put up by him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, one Mr.K.Rajendran had filed W.P.No.18953 of 2020 against the official respondents as well as against the petitioner, for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 therein to comply with the 3 rd respondent's notice, dated 08.10.2020, with further direction to demolish all the unauthorised commercial constructions put up by the 4 th respondent/petitioner herein, at Door No.26/19, Salem-Cuddalore Main Road, Narasingapuram, Attur Taluk, Salem District, based on his representations dated 07.09.2020 and 09.10.2020. The writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court, without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in his representations or in the writ petition, directing the 3 rd respondent therein to proceed further in terms of the notice dated 08.10.2020, subject to legal interdict, and to complete the exercise in accordance with law within a stipulated time. In compliance of the same, the impugned notice, dated 30.12.2020, came to be issued.

(3.) It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, challenging the notice issued by the 4 th respondent, dated 20.11.2020, an appeal/Special Revision has also been filed under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before the Secretary to Housing and Urban Development Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, along with an Interlocutory Application for stay, and it is yet to be entertained. The primordial submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, since an application has been submitted for regularisation and the premises is primarily residential and there is also a shop, considering the fact that the petitioner, along with his family, is residing in the premises, prays for equity and appropriate orders.