K. SHANTHI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the 1st respondent, Mr. A. Nagarajan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2 and 4, Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 4th respondent and Mr. S.K. Raameshwar, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the 5th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner would submit that land bearing Plot No. 337, admeasuring to an extent of 450 sq.ft at No. 196, East Namachivayapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094 was allotted to the husband of the petitioner viz., Karmegam in the year 1984 and vide proceedings dated 12.05.1994, the 3rd respondent has also called upon the husband of the petitioner to pay service charges and it was also paid and thereafter, the land was measured and subsequently, superstructure was put up in the year 1995 and it was also subjected to statutory levies. However to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 4th respondent has issued a Lock and Seal notice on 24.11.2011 and subsequently, Demolition notice dated 28.01.2017 was issued. The petitioner challenging the same has filed Special Revision / Appeal under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act,1971 before the 1st respondent on 23.02.2017 and the same is pending. However, the 4th respondent, without taking note of the pendency of the appeal, has once again issued the impugned Deoccupation, Lock and Seal notice dated 07.05.2018 under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 cannot be invoked for the reason that it would applies for undergoing construction and admittedly superstructure had been put up very long back and it is also subjected to statutory levies and therefore, the Corporation of Chennai cannot take a stand that the superstructure is unauthorised and also would further urge that the plinth area of the superstructure is minimal in nature and the petitioner belonging to lower economic group and he is in occupation of the same for over thirty years and would further add that since the statutory special revision / appeal is pending for nearly one year, appropriate direction can be issued to the 1st respondent to dispose of the same and till such time, further proceedings may be deferred in respect of the impugned de-occupation notice.