(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D) No.3 Housing and Urban Development (UDV(1)) Department dated 22.01.2024 and quash the same and consequently directing the 4th respondent to carry out the demolition of the building in question as proposed and propounded by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 3837/2022/Thi.Ma.3 dated 09.12.2022 to the 4th respondent and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. Challenging the proceedings in G.O.(3D) No.3, Housing and Urban Development (UDV(1)) Department, dated 22.01.2024, passed by the first respondent, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to demolish the building in question, as proposed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3837/2022/Thi.Ma.3, dated 09.12.2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are sister and brothers. The fifth respondent initially applied for planning permission for construction of a building to an extent of 1,976 sq.ft. Though permission was granted, the fifth respondent put up construction over and above the approved plan. Aggrieved by the unauthorised additional construction, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.15773 of 2022 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 04.01.2023, closed the said Writ Petition as infructuous on the ground that the retention application had already been rejected. However, in W.M.P.(MD) Nos.11364 and 11366 of 2022, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in respect of the rejection order passed by the authorities. Thereafter, respondents 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Subsequently, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in Cont.P.(MD) No.521 of 2023, in which this Court directed the competent authority to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by respondents 5 and 6. Pursuant thereto, the impugned proceedings came to be passed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that, admittedly, the fifth respondent had initially obtained permission for construction of a building to an extent of 1,976 sq.ft. in the land owned by him. However, subsequently, the respondents 5 and 6 put up a construction measuring more than 10,000 sq.ft., which is clearly in violation of the sanctioned plan. Such a violation, according to the learned counsel, cannot be regularised by the appellate authority in exercise of the powers under Section 79 of the Act. He would further submit that the issue relating to such unauthorised construction and the power of the authorities to regularise the same has already been considered by this Court and that the official respondents have no power to grant such relaxation. He therefore prayed for appropriate orders.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the fifth respondent had initially put up construction in the land measuring 6,003.08 sq.ft. Subsequently, the sixth respondent, who is the brother of the fifth respondent, also joined with the fifth respondent and they jointly owned land measuring about 10,093 sq.ft., comprising 6,003.08 sq.ft. and 3,785 sq.ft. It is submitted that, as per the applicable planning rules, they are entitled to put up construction to a substantially higher extent and that the construction actually put up by respondents 5 and 6 is only about 10,800 sq.ft. Therefore, the Appellate Committee, while exercising its power under Section 79 of the Act, has rightly allowed the appeal and the same does not call for interference.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 would further submit that, pursuant to the order passed in the appeal, planning permission was granted in favour of respondents 5 and 6 on 30.07.2024. The said permission was granted subject to a condition that the two properties be amalgamated. The said condition has also been complied with and thereafter, the building plan was approved in favour of respondents 5 and 6. It is further submitted that the building plan has been sanctioned in accordance with the applicable building rules and, therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference.

6. It is also submitted that the petitioners are the sisters of respondents 5 and 6 and that a partition suit in respect of the subject property is already pending before the competent civil Court in O.S.No.151 of 2020. Therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, can work out her remedy before the competent civil Court in respect of the inter se property dispute.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents and perused the materials available on record.

8. The undisputed facts are that the fifth respondent had initially obtained planning permission for construction of a building to an extent of 1,976 sq.ft. Thereafter, additional construction was put up, pursuant to which the petitioner approached this Court. This Court, by order dated 16.11.2022, directed the authorities to issue a stop-work notice in respect of the unauthorised construction. Subsequently, the respondents 5 and 6 submitted a revised plan and pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, preferred an appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The said appeal came to be allowed. Thereafter, planning permission was granted in favour of respondents 5 and 6 on 30.07.2024, subject to the condition of amalgamation of the properties. It is seen from the materials placed before this Court that the properties have subsequently been amalgamated and the building plan has been approved in accordance with the applicable planning and building rules. The Appellate Committee, while exercising its power under Section 79 of the Act, has considered the extent of the property, the extent of construction and the applicable planning norms and has thereafter allowed the appeal. In the light of the subsequent planning permission and approval of the building plan, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners and the respondents 5 and 6 are admittedly siblings and that a partition suit is stated to be pending before the competent civil Court in respect of the subject property. Therefore, any dispute relating to the title, ownership, possession or respective rights of the parties over the property cannot be adjudicated in the present Writ Petition and has to be worked out before the competent civil Court.

10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent civil Court, where the civil suit is stated to be pending, in respect of any inter se property dispute between the parties. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.