CHAIRMAN MADRAS METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. S RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals arise out of the common order by the learned single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, challenging the demolition notices issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as'mmda').

(2.) THE writ-petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the offices/flats in the residential apartments, promoted and developed by M/s. R. R. Constructions, situate at Door No. 16, Saravana Mudali Street, T. Nagar, Madras. THE promoter had applied to the appropriate planning authority for the planning permission for construction of a residential complex of ground plus three floors, with four flats each in the first, second and third floors and the ground floor for being used as parking space for the flat-owners. THE planning permit was issued by the Corporation of Madras on 25-5-198 1. In violation of the permit, the promoters had converted the ground floor, which was shown in the planning permission as parking space for the use of the flat-owners, for commercial purposes by putting up office-rooms and also put up unauthorised construction of four flats (Flat Nos. 13, 14, 16 and 16-A) over and above the third floor. Irked by the act of unauthorised constructions by the promoter, the purchasers of the flats in the first, second and third floors of the apartment made a complaint to the mmda about the unauthorised and illegal conversion of parking space and construction of four flats. Based on the complaint received, MMDA had issued demolition notices, dated 20-4-1988, under Sec. 56 read with Sec. 85 of the Tamil nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (in short, for the sake of brevity referred to as'the Act'), directing the owner/developer/occupiers to demolish the construction which had been carried out without permission of the MMDA. THE said demand notices were challenged by the purchasers/tenants of the structures in parking area and flat Nos. 13, 14, 16 and 16-A by filing writ petitions before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, owners/occupiers of the sanctioned flats got themselves impleaded as respondents in the writ petitions.

(3.) A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act would show that the contravention of the said provisions pertaining to the building can lead to three different and distinct consequences. First being the issuance of a notice to the person in terms of Sec. 56 (1)calling upon him to restore the land to its condition before the said development took place and secure compliance with the terms of permission, as the case may be. A time frame has, however, been fixed for such notice being given to the person namely within three years of the offending development. Secondly, in terms of Sec. 85 of the Act the appropriate planning authority may require such a person to restore the land or building to its original condition or to bring the land or building in conformity with any such conditions specified in such permission within in such period as may be specified in the order. If such person fails to comply with such order within the period specified in the order, the appropriate planning authority may itself take such measure as appear to be necessary to give effect to the order and to recover the costs thereof from such person as arrears of land revenue. Lastly, any person or a company who is found guilty of contravention of Sections 47 and 48 of the Act is liable for punishment under sections 86 and 87 of the act.