RAMASAMY ALIAS TRAFFIC RAMASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This pro bono publico has been filed by the petitioner to restrain the 4th respondent from putting up unauthorised construction of multi-storied building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chenani - 600 006 pursuant to the illegal planning permission accorded by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) It is stated that the 4th respondent is putting up a multi-storied residential apartment consisting of 17 floors in the above stated address, after obtaining planning permission from the 2nd respondent - CMDA. It is stated that the planning permission was granted for the construction of residential apartment covering 22.68% of the total plot extent, which comes to 50,710 sq. ft. The 4th respondent was accorded permission to avail from and out of the total extent of 50,710 sq.ft. 17 residential floors in the backdrop of 3.38 FSI. As per the Development Control Rules the FSI permissible for a multi-storied building is 1.5 or 1.75 or 2.50, if the maximum coverage is upto 30%. If the maximum coverage is between 30% and 40%, the FSI shall be at 2.25, and if the maximum coverage is above 40% and below 50%, then the permissible FSI shall be at 2. Even for constructions of I.T. Parks the FSI shall be at 3. But, in the instant case, for the 4th respondent's residential construction 3.38 FSI is accorded by the 2nd respondent, which is ex-facie illegal. This will ultimately result in floor violations, which is contrary to law. Such kind of FSI violations and floor violations, will ultimately result in unlawful constructions, and tend to commit unauthorised encroachments not only in the space area but also in the ground level plinth area, which are hazardous to the occupants. It is stated that the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent accorded exemption of O.S.R. to the 4th respondent's construction by collecting compounding charges, which is bad in the eye of law. Such exemption from O.S.R. or sparing of O.S.R. by collecting compounding charges can be justified for areas beneath one lakh square feet and that too only for constructions falling in line with the parameters of constructions with reference to new development control rules but not to an anomalous construction such as the present one. Therefore, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition to restrain the 4th respondent from continuing its unauthorised construction at the above stated site.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.