SHANTHI Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER TIRUVALLUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing counsel appears on behalf of the sole respondent.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Plot No. 97, S.No. 439/1 and 3, MGM Nagar, Tiruvallur District, admeasuring to an extent of 1680 sq.ft., and it was purchased through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1978/2003 dated 07.04.2003, registered on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar, Tiruvallur. The petitioner had applied for the Planning Permission and it was also accorded vide Planning Permit No. 136/2003 dated 10.07.2003 and it was also duly approved by the respondent through his proceedings in KM.No. 139/2003 dated 10.07.2003. It is further averred by the petitioner that her husband Thiru.K.Govardhanan, who was working as a Steno-Typist in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, had obtained housing loan and a superstructure was put up by utilising the said loan and it is the specific case of the petitioner that the building has been put up strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and it is also averred by the petitioner that to her shock and surprise, she was issued with the impugned communication dated 15.05.2018 by the respondent under section 216[1&2], 316 and 317 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, alleging that she has put up an unauthroised superstructure for residential purpose and challenging the same, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that admittedly, the building / planning permission has been accorded to the petitioner and her husband, had obtained prior permission and also availed the housing loan and utilising the same, a superstructure has been put up strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and without causing any inspection, the respondent took an unilateral decision and came to the conclusion that the superstructure is unauthorised and prays for interference.