Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the Joint Venture agreement dated 05.07.2012 entered into between the petitioner and his brother / 13th respondent on one hand and the 12th respondent/promoter on other hand. Under Clause 13 of the agreement, it was clearly mentioned that OSR land will be retained by the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a temple. Thus, the intention of the petitioner is to keep the land on the eastern side (S.No.98/3) as vacant for temple purpose. Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that after the partition of the land on 18.10.2012, the petitioner is in no way connected with the construction of apartments by the 12th respondent. On 04.03.2013, there is a separate joint venture agreement exclusively between the 13th respondent, Kannan and T.D.Raja and the promoter/ 12th respondent and it is based on the said joint venture agreement, the planning permission was obtained on 12.11.2013 and the promoter constructed the four storey building in S.nos.98/1 and 98/2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the promoter had not only encroached the private land of the petitioner, but also the Highways Road i.e., Trichy - Vayalur Main Road. Though such glaring violation committed by the promoter, was brought to the notice of the official respondents by the petitioner, no steps have been taken to restore the building according to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis original approved plan, but they are helping the promoter to legalise or regularise the deviations. The learned counsel further submitted that the building permit expired in the year 2016, which was not renewed subsequently and therefore, the promoter is not entitled to proceed with the construction or sell the properties without licence/permit. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for appropriate directions to the official respondents to remove the unauthorised construction and restore the building to the original approved plan.

6. Though the above notice was issued, pointing out the above defects, it is not known as to why the Corporation did not take action in the matter. The second respondent pointed out some defects and mentioned some details on 22.01.2018 under Section 282(3) and 447 of the Act. On receipt of notice, the ninth respondent has submitted a revised plan. Thus, it is clear that if a revised plan has been submitted, it amounts to that the ninth respondent had admitted deviations. Therefore, it is clear that the action initiated by the respondent Corporation is justified and proper. The only thing which disturbs us is that for nearly 4 years, no action has been taken by the Corporation and the Commissioner should look into the matter as to why there is stalemate of the issue. Be that as it may, since the revised plan is pending before the local planning authority, we are constrained to issue direction in the writ petition. So far as the stilt area is concerned, the approval plan indicates it is ear marked for vehicle parking, generator room, lumber room, office, vehicle room, driver rest room, electric room and store. Apart from these features, there can be no other construction in the stilt area. Therefore, local planning authority cannot regularise this deviation as any conversion of the stilt area for a different user would be a totally unauthorised one.