A. MUTHUMALAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1 st petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Door No.1/30, East Coast Road ER , Kottivakkam, Chennai-41 and the 2 nd petitioner, who is his wife, is the owner of the property bearing Door No.1/29, ECR, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41. The petitioners claimed to have purchased the said property and put up constructions in the year 1981 and only in the year 1995, they had applied for the Planning Aproval to Chitlapakkam Panchayat and it came to be rejected for the reason that it is an unapproved layout.

(2.) The petitioners would submit that the 1 st petitioner was advised to avail the Regularisation scheme u/s.113-A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 in short ''TCP Act'' and he and his wife/2 nd petitioner herein, had jointly applied for the regularisation of the constructions put up by them in the above cited Door Numbers to the 2 nd respondent through Kottivakkam Panchayat on 27.05.1999 and it is still pending consideration on the file of the 2 nd respondent. The petitioners claims to have raised the height of the parapet wall of the first floor of the premises in Door No.1/30, ECR, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41, in the year 2013, and having noticed the same, the officials of the 2 nd respondent has issued the Stop Work Notice on 20.11.2013 and accordingly, the petitioners had stopped the construction of the parapet wall and also brought to the knowledge of the 2 nd respondent about the pendency of the application filed u/s.113-A of the TCP Act. However, the officials of the 2 nd respondent proceeded further and locked and sealed the premises bearing Door No.1/30, leaving the other building in Door No.1/29, which is owned by the 2 nd petitioner/his wife and which also stands on the similar footing, without taking any action. The 1 st petitioner, aggrieved by the act of locking and sealing, preferred the statutory appeal/revision before the 1 st respondent on 27.02.2014 and after considering the materials placed and hearing the petitioner therein, an order came to be passed on 11.04.2016, in and by which, the 2 nd respondent was directed to de-seal the premises bearing Door No.1/30, ECR, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41 and direted the 2 nd respondent to process the Regularisation Application said to be pending and file a report on the action taken.

(3.) The grievance now expressed by the 1 st petitioner is that pendency of the Regularisation Application in respect of Door No.1/30, ECR, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41, the premises owned by his wife, viz., the 2 nd petitioner herein, bearing Door No.1/29, ECR, Kottivakkam, Chennai-41 has been locked and sealed and it was also brought to the knowledge of the concerned officials in the form of representation dated16.07.2019. The 2 nd petitioner, aggrieved by the said act, preferred a statutory appeal/revision by invoking the provisions of Section 80-A of the TCP Act, and upon hearing the same, the 1 st respondent has passed the order dated 10.02.2020 with the following directions:-