LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-481

K. EASSA Vs. STATE

Decided On March 07, 2024
K. Eassa Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 12/12/2023 passed by the 3rd respondent dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

(2.) The petitioner states that he is running a sweet shop in the subject property which originally consisted of Ground and First Floor. It is admitted that thereafter, the petitioner put up construction of Second to Fourth Floors on the property. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner has applied for regularisation of the construction put up on the Second to Fourth Floors. Pending the regularisation application filed by the petitioner, the 6th respondent issued a notice dtd. 14/7/2018 informing the petitioner about the disconnection of water and sewerage connection to the premises. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition earlier before this Court in W.P.No.19855 of 2018. By order dtd. 4/9/2023 in W.P.No.19855 of 2018, this Court, by recording as if the regularisation application submitted by the petitioner is confined only to Ground and First Floor, directed the official respondents not to take further action in respect of Ground and First Floors, whereas, this Court had directed that the amenities in respect of Second to Fourth Floors be disconnected as it was found to be unauthorised. Paragraph 7 of the order dtd. 4/9/2023 reads as follows :

(3.) Now it is admitted that the regularisation application filed by the petitioner is also in respect of Second to Fourth Floors. However, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate his case quite contrary to the order passed by this Court earlier, where the petitioner was granted relief only with regard to Ground and Floor floors and there is a direction indirectly to take action against unauthorised construction. The direction of the Division Bench in the earlier order dtd. 4/9/2023 in W.P.No.19855 of 2018 against the unauthorised construction, will operate as res judicata. Despite this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she was repeatedly insisting for an interim order to direct the respondents to de-seal the unauthorised construction in the Second, Third and Fourth Floors. In view of the earlier order of this Court, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.