1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)Nos.3344 and 3567 of 2011 1.S.Suthanthira Amalraj ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3344/2011 2.A.Ramasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3567/2011 Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The President cum Executive Officer, Kannanenthal Village Panchayat, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, Madurai District. 5.S.P.S.Vijaya Raj 6.Gurusamy ... Respondents in both W.Ps. Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 their officers and subordinates to demolish the unauthorised and unlawful construction put up by the 5th respondent in Door.No.1/709 Plot Nos. 52 and 53 Kambar street Kannanenthal village panchayat North Taluk Madurai district and consequently forbear the 3rd respondent from granting building plan approval to the 5th respondent based on their applications to be submitted if any in respect of his property situated at Door.No.1/709, Plot Nos.52 and 53, Kambar Street, Kannanenthal Village Panchayat, North Taluk, Madurai District. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand for Mr.P.Gunasekaran For Respondents 1-4 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian, in both Petitions Additional Government Pleader. For Respondent 5&6 in both Petitions : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER The petitioners who are the adjoining owners are challenging the construction as now put up by the fifth respondent with the assistance of the sixth respondent. According to the petitioners, the fifth respondent is putting up construction without any approval and that he has put up construction violating the plan approval and illegal construction is being done and they would also pray that such illegal construction should be demolished and if any application is filed for grant of approval, it should not be granted. They would further contend that earlier they have filed a writ petition when the fifth respondent attempted to put up a factory, the same was stopped by them. Now under the guise of getting a new plan, they may revive the old one is their apprehension. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1995-2 Writ L.R 737 (Palani Hills Conservation Council etc., The State of Tamil Nadu etc., and others) for the proposition that if any violation is done even demolition could be ordered by this Court. Hence, the present writ petitions. 2.The fifth respondent who is putting up the construction submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the writ petitions was presented only on 21.03.2011 and 23.03.2011 whereas he had applied for necessary permission to put up construction with the concerned panchayat and also produced a approved plan for putting up the construction of ground floor and first floor dwelling house in S.R.No.131/3 D.No.1/709, Plot Nos.52 and 53 which is approved for the period commencing from 19.03.2011 to 18.03.2014 under B.P.A.No.776/10-11, dated 19.03.2011. He, therefore submitted that the very writ petitions are not maintainable and that proper approval is obtained, if at all there is any violation, the authorities will definitely take recourse of the same and he will also not violate the plan approval as granted by the panchayat President and he is only put up the dwelling house and he has not put up any industry in that place. Therefore, he would only contend that this is purely a civil dispute between the adjourning owners who have come forward by way of these frivolous writ petitions. When there is no question of any illegal construction and there is no violation of plan approval, the question of demolition does not arise. 3.Learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the dispute is between the petitioners and the fifth respondent which is purely civil in nature. He further submitted that if there is any violation is made to the approved plan, the authorities will definitely look into the matter and take necessary action in accordance with law and as of now, permission is only granted to the fifth respondent. Therefore, the fifth respondent is only putting up the construction. 4.Heard the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.The prayer made in the writ petitions is a very peculiar one that the petitioners seek to demolish the illegal construction put up by the fifth respondent and that if any application is filed by the fifth respondent for permission to put up construction should not be granted. But unfortunately, the permission itself has been granted even before the petitioners came to Court as early as on 19.03.2011. Therefore, if at all the petitioners can have any grievance, if the fifth respondent violates any condition or deviates the plan approval, it is always open for them to approach the authorities to take necessary action. At the same time, if they are aggrieved even for the grant of very permission by the panchayat that too for dwelling house, it is always open for them to file an appeal before the appellate authority provided under law and the appellate authority will consider the same on merits. Therefore, the writ petitions at this juncture are premature. If any violations is made by the fifth respondent, it is always open to the petitioners to point out to the authorities concerned, namely, the third respondent herein for necessary action by way of representation. Therefore, suffice to state that the writ petitions at this stage are premature especially when the permission for putting up construction has been granted and the fifth respondent has categorically stated that he will abide the conditions laid down in the plan approval and that he will not deviate from the construction. 6.The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The President cum Executive Officer, Kannanenthal Village Panchayat, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Oomatchikulam Police Station, Madurai District +Two Ccs to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.Nos.14326,14286 +Two Ccs to Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam, Advocate, SR.Nos.14259,14258 sms rl/9c – 6.5.2011 Writ Petition (MD)Nos.3344 and 3567 of 2011 18.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/