முன்னாள் முதலமைச்சர் எம்ஜிஆர் ராமாவரம் தோட்டத்தில் சட்டத்துக்குப் புறம்பாக கட்டுமானம் அதாவது இன்டோர் ஸ்டேடியம் மற்றும் அவுட்டோர் ஸ்டேடியம் பில்டிங் பர்மிஷன் இல்லாமல் கன்ஸ்ட்ரக்ஷன் நடப்பதால் எம்ஜிஆரின் வளர்ப்பு

I

[11/18, 19:14] Ilango Dk: முன்னாள் முதலமைச்சர் எம்ஜிஆர் ராமாவரம் தோட்டத்தில் சட்டத்துக்குப் புறம்பாக கட்டுமானம் அதாவது இன்டோர் ஸ்டேடியம் மற்றும் அவுட்டோர் ஸ்டேடியம் பில்டிங் பர்மிஷன் இல்லாமல் கன்ஸ்ட்ரக்ஷன் நடப்பதால் எம்ஜிஆரின் வளர்ப்பு மகள் கீதா மது மோகன் சென்னை மாநகராட்சி கமிஷனரிடம் புகார் கொடுத்தும் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்காததால் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந்தார் அந்த வழக்கு இன்று நீதிபதிகள் கல்யாண சுந்தரம் மற்றும் சிவஞானம் அமர்வில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது விசாரணைக்கு வழக்கை எடுத்துக் கொண்ட நீதிபதிகள் சென்னை மாநகராட்சி கமிஷனருக்கும் வளசரவாக்கம் zonal officer க்கும் நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பி உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்கள். வழக்கை மீண்டும் 30.11.2021 அன்று பதிலளிக்கும்படி விசாரணைக்கு தள்ளி வைத்துள்ளார்கள்.
எஸ். துரைசாமி,
V. இளங்கோவன்,
Advocates
9003077888
[11/18, 19:18] Sekarreporter1: 🌴

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. 24612 of 2021

Tmt.Geetha M.Mohan,
W/o.Madhu Mohan.K.,
No.3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road,
MGR Gardens, Ramapuram,
Chennai – 600 089. .. PETITIONER
/VERSUS/

1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building,
Chennai -3.

2.The Zonal Officer,
Zone XI,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
33, Arcot, Road,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai-87.

3.The Inspector of Police,
S-4, Nandhambakkam Police Station,
Nandambakkam,Chennai – 600 035.

4.Tmt.Sudha Vijayakumar,
W/o.Vijayakumar,

5.Ramachandran,
S/o.Vijayakumar,

Respondents 4 and 5 are residing at
No.3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road,
MGR Gardens, Ramapuram,
Chennai – 600 089. .. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER

I, Geetha M.Mohan, wife of Madhu Mohan.K., aged about 59 years residing at No.3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road, MGR Gardens, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.

2. I state that myself and my family is residing at No.3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road, MGR Gardens, Ramapuram, Chennai. I state

1st Page:
Corrns:
that 1)myself, 2)4th respondent, 3)Nirmala W/o. Appu @ Raveendaran, 4)Janu @ Janaki W/o. Sivaraman and 5)Radha w/o.Gopalakrishnan are the foster children of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Thiru.M.G.Ramachandran popularly called as MGR. As per the Will deed dated 18.01.1987 executed by Thiru.M.G.Ramachandran in D.No.2/1987 in favour of the above said five of us and a Deaf and Dum home now running in the name of Dr.M.G.Ramachandran Home and Higher Secondary School for speech and hearing impaired have got ownership and legal right over the above property situated at Old No.4/119, New No. 3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road, MGR Gardens, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089.

3. The above Will deed was probated before this Hon’ble court in O.P.No.388 of 1992. There is no one else who have got any right over the above property except the above said persons as per the above Will deed written by Thiru.M.G.Ramachandran the Testator.

4. Since there was no partition has been made till date, all the above said beneficiaries made oral partition of the bunglow among them and residing in their respective portions. Apart from the residential building, all other infrastructures viz. 1)Garden, 2)Temple, 3)Car shed, 4)Swimming Pool, 5)Preview Theater other structures and garden are common for all the beneficiaries till such time partition suit pending in the court is disposed off.

5. I state that though all the occupants agreed and act upon the oral partition for the bunglow, the 4th respondent and her son who is the 5th respondent herein with an intention to illegally occupy the entire property causes hindrance to me and others. In the Will executed by the former Chief Minister Thiru.M.G.Ramachandran, it is specified that the beneficiaries should not sale, rent, lease out or alienate the property in any manner. However, by complete violation of the terms and conditions of the Will, the 4th respondent allowed the media for 2nd Page:
Corrns:
cinema shootings inside the MGR garden premises for gain wrongfully. In a similar incident, before I could file a Civil Suit for permanent injunction restraining the 4th respondent from permitting cinema shooting, the private channel has already telecast the programme without our consent.

6. While so, again in another incident the 4th respondent and her husband for whom ground floor was allotted in oral partition, disturbed our allottement in the first floor by starting construction infront of our portion for making additional room. Hence, I lodged a police complaint in the year 2004. The 3rd respondent police conducted enquiry and strictly warned the 4th respondent and hence the 4th respondent gave written undertaking stating that she will not disturb the possession of the other beneficiaries anymore and will not put up any unauthorized constructions without the permission of the other 4 beneficiaries. However, against the undertaking given by her, the 4th respondent again started harassing me with an intention to illegally occupy my possession of common areas. Hence, I filed a partition suit before the District Court at Chengalpattu for peaceful living and later it was transferred to this Hon’ble court in Tr.C.S.No.204 of 2006 and the same is still pending in the court.

7. I state that in the year 2007 the 4th respondent’s husband Vijayakumar expired and thereafter the 5th respondent who is their son also started disturbing occupying the common areas belongs to the 5 beneficiaries along with his mother who is the 4th respondent herein. The 5th respondent in the name of cinema fan club allowing gangs of unknown persons to enter into the garden in the even night hours and involving in unlawful activities which is causing unbearable nuisance and safety threat to me and other senior citizen beneficiaries.

8. That apart the respondents 4 and 5 started putting up a permanent construction now of indoor stadium, Volleyball court / godown for commercial purpose. Thus, the above construction is 3rd Page:
Corrns:
an unauthorized and without getting permission from legal owners of the property and any building permission from the 1st and 2nd respondents and also from other authorities as provided under section 47 and 58 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 0f 1972). As per the above provision
no person shall carry out any development or construction of building or structure, subdivision, layout, reconstitution or amalgamation of land or change of use of land or building without the written permission of the competent authority. Thus, the respondents 4 and 5 have no authority to put up any structures of their own wish in the MGR Garden property as per the Will deed dated 18.01.1987. Apart from the above, the 4th respondent had filed a suit against Deaf and Dump Home and obtained status quo in I.A.2477/2004 in O.S.No.922/2004 passed by the District Munsif Court for MGR garden property. Hence construction of Volly ball turf, stadium, godown and any other constructions in common area is complete violation of the order passed on their own civil suit as well as against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 0f 1972).

9. I state that the above unauthorized construction being constructed in day today basis for the last 15 days without any authority and consent from the other legal owners by the respondents 4 and 5. Hence on 27.10.2021 I made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorized construction and restore the same in its original position. However, till date no action was taken by the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorized construction.

10. I state that the respondents 4 and 5 are taking advantage on the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 have gone to the extent of even demolishing a historic identity building on the north west corner of the property which was essential land mark for partition of MGR Garden for their own unlawful personal gain. I state that the respondents 4 and 5 have not obtained any building plan approval or planning permission for any such act.
4th Page:
Corrns:
11. I state that even earlier one Lucky Murugan who is the friend of the 5th respondent and also the District Secretary of Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagamon on 27.01.2021 without any right illegally encroached the platform located near front gate of our residential premises belonging to us, and had constructed a cement structure on our premises compound wall obstructing the platform which belongs to Highways Department and also installed a flag pole on the platform. Against which I filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2712 of 2021 before this Hon’ble court and after notice was ordered, the authorities concerned have removed the unauthorized construction.

12. I state that as per the procedure, to obtain planning permission should initially draw the building plan of the proposed construction through a licensed surveyor enrolled with Greater Chennai Corporation according to development control rules of CMDA and apply on the Greater Chennai Corporation website. If the submitted plan of the proposal is as per development control rules, the pre designed software installed will approve the drawing automatically and an approval number Greater Chennai Corporation shall be created. That means the proposed drawing submitted is as per rules and it cannot be taken as planning approval. The respondents 4 and 5 have not filed any application as per the procedure for the construction.

13. I state that in the case of PRATIBHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. -VS- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 1991 3 SCC 341 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

”Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that this case should be a pointer to all the builders that making of unauthorized constructions never pays and is against the interest of the society at large. The rules, regulations and bye-laws are made by the Corporations or development authorities taking in view the larger public interest of the society and 5TH Page:
Corrns:
it is the bounden duty of the citizens to obey and follow such rules which are made for their own benefits.”
14. In the case of DR.G.N.KHAJURIA -VS- DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY reported in (1995) 5 SCC 762, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
“Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorized constructions are demolished on the force of the order of Courts, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officer of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorized construction to be made or make illegal allotments goscot-free. This should not, however, have happened for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorized construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite.”

Hence the authorities are bound to take stringent action against the unauthorized construction and remove the same as and when it is brought to their knowledge. However, in the present case though the petitioner made representations, the respondents 1
6th Page:
Corrns:
and 2 failed to take any action to remove the unauthorized construction put up by the respondents 4 and 5. Hence it is just and necessary to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the unauthorized construction of the respondents 4 and 5.

15. I state that I have no other alternative remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an issuance of a writ. I state that I have not filed any other writ petition for the same relief.

In the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from proceeding with any illegal construction in the name of indoor and outdoor volley ball turf, stadium, at Old No.4/119, New No. 3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road, MGR Gardens, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice.

In such circumstances it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction raised by the respondents 4 and 5 in the name of volley ball court, indoor, outdoor stadium, at Old No.4/119, New No. 3/157, Mount Poonamallee Road, MGR Gardens, Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089 and to take action against the respondents 4 and 5 in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai X
this the 27th day of October X BEFORE ME,
2021 and signed her name in X
my presence. X
ADVOCATE : CHENNAI.

7th & Last Page:
Corrns:

You may also like...