Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by E. Velu and V. Sivagami against the Commissioner of the Greater Corporation of Chennai and other officials, challenging a notice dated 18.01.2024 issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The notice was issued for the removal of unauthorised constructions in the petitioners' property. The petitioners also sought compensation for harassment and mental agony. The primary factual background involved a civil dispute between the petitioners and their neighbours that was pending before a civil court. The petitioners contended that this pending civil suit barred the Corporation from initiating action under the Town and Country Planning Act. The legal issue before the High Court was whether the impugned notice could be quashed in writ proceedings given the pending civil litigation and whether the disputed facts regarding the conformity of the constructions with the Building Plan Approval could be adjudicated under Article 226. The petitioners argued that the notice was vitiated due to the pendency of the civil suit and that the constructions were in accordance with the approved plan. The respondents maintained that the notice was validly issued under the Act. The court, after hearing the parties, held that a civil dispute pending between the parties does not act as a bar for issuance of notice for violation of Building Plan Approval under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. It further observed that the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the correctness of the constructions vis-à-vis the Building Plan Approval, as such disputed facts require field inspection by the competent authorities. The court emphasised that the power of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring that the decision-making process is in accordance with the statutes and rules, and not the decision itself. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners, verify the documents, and pass final orders on the allegations of unauthorised construction. If any unauthorised construction is found, it must be removed following the due procedure. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Building and Construction Law - Unauthorised Construction - Pending Civil Suit Not a Bar - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Section 56(1) - The petitioners argued that a civil dispute was pending between them and their neighbours, but the court held that such a dispute does not prevent the authorities from issuing notice for alleged unauthorised construction under the Act. Held, the notice was validly issued despite the pending civil suit. (Para 4) B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope under Article 226 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court's power under Article 226 is limited to reviewing the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision. Disputed facts regarding building plan compliance necessitate field inspection by authorities and cannot be examined in writ proceedings. Held, the writ petition was dismissed; the authorities were directed to consider the petitioners' explanation and pass final orders on alleged unauthorised construction. (Paras 5-6,8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 could be quashed in writ proceedings when a civil dispute is pending between the parties, and whether the correctness of constructions as per Building Plan Approval can be examined by the High Court under Article 226 in the absence of field inspection.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The respondents/competent Authorities shall look into the explanation submitted by the petitioners, with reference to the documents and take a decision and pass final orders regarding the allegations of unauthorised construction of building in the subject property. In the event of any unauthorised construction, it is to be removed by following the procedures. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Pending civil dispute does not bar regulatory action under Town Planning Act
- High Court cannot conduct roving enquiry into correctness of construction
- Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to process not decision
- Disputed facts regarding building plan compliance require field inspection by authorities
