Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Shaik Mohamed vs Valavandhan on 24 June, 2019

Author: M.M.Sundresh

Bench: M.M.Sundresh, R.Mahadevan

                                                         1

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED: 24.06.2019

                                                     Coram

                                    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
                                                       and
                                     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.MAHADEVAN


                                         Cont. Petition No.2088 of 2017


                      Shaik Mohamed                                 ..    Petitioner

                                                         vs.

                      1.Valavandhan,
                        The Deputy Director,
                        Town and Country Planning,
                        83, Pidamaneri Road,
                        Appavu Nagar, Dharmapuri.

                      2.Sundara Baskar
                        (The President in charge Scheme)
                        Shoolagiri Village Panchayat,
                        Krishnagiri - 635 117.

                      3.Annapoorni,
                        The Block Development Officer,
                        Shoolagiri Panchayat,
                        Shoolagiri - 635 117.
                        Krishnagiri.                                ..    Respondents


                           Petition filed under   Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to
                      punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order passed by
                      this Court in W.P.No.19299 of 2016 dated 10.11.2016.




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                              2

                                  For Petitioner       ..     Mr.V.Raghavachari

                                  For Respondents ..          Mr.R.Govindasamy,
                                                              Spl. Govt. Pleader for R3
                                                              No appearance for R1 & R2


                                                            ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) Alleging that the order dated 10.11.2016 made in W.P.No.19299 of 2016 has not been complied with, the present contempt petition has been filed.

2.On a complaint of unauthorised construction, upon perusal of the materials, this Court issued the following directions:

(i)The 7th respondent is directed to produce the planning permission, if any, from the competent authority/third respondent within two weeks.
(ii)The planning authority will take a decision whether there is any sanctioned plain or whether sanction is required to be granted or not post facto within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

http://www.judis.nic.in 3

(iii)In case, there is no planning permission and no planning permission is granted, then the corporation will proceed in accordance with law after notice to all concerned within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

3.Thereafter, as directed, the authorities proceeded for taking action. Pursuant to the same, lock and seal notice was issued on 11.02.2018. Upon receipt of notice in the contempt petition, the third respondent filed status report which reads as follows:

10.I respectfully submit that since there was no response from the 7th respondent to vacate the building, hence final notice has been served on 10.02.2019 and accordingly, the 3rd respondent, the Inspector of Police, Shoolagiri, Thasildar, Block Development Officer, Deputy Block Development Officer of Shoolagiri have locked and sealed the construction made in the S.No.62/3, in the presence of general public on 11.02.2018.
4.A specific stand is taken by the petitioner that no action is forthcoming. In such view of the matter, the respondents are directed http://www.judis.nic.in 4 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and R.MAHADEVAN, J.

mmi to proceed with the consequential action with regard to demolition of unauthorised construction, if there are no legal impediments.

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.

(M.M.S.J.) (R.M.D.J.) 24.06.2019 ssm/mmi Cont.P.No.2088 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in