S K VENKATACHALAM Vs. COIMBATORE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein had purchased 6 cents of land in T.S.No.195 S.No.11/1278 from the 2nd respondent herein who probably represented to them that it was a house-site in an approved lay-out. Petitioners claim to have submitted a plan to the 1st respondent Corporation for approval on 10-3-1995. Petitioners presumed that the plan was sanctioned as no reply was received by them from the Corporation for sixty days. Petitioners, therefore, constructed a house on the site purchased by them. While the construction was going on, it seems that an order came to be passed by the Commissioner of the 1st respondent Corporation on 21-7-1995 whereby the petitioners were asked to stop the construction work. It seems that the petitioners did not pay any heed to that and completed the construction and, therefore, ultimately an order came to be passed on 15-9-1995 calling upon them to demolish the construction which they had put.

(2.) Petitioners suggest that since there are no violations of the Building Rules of the Corporation and the construction put up by them is strictly in accordance with law, there would be no necessity to demolish the same and that the Corporation is acting in an arbitrary manner.

(3.) The Corporation has come up with a specific counter. In that counter, the Corporation points out that this site was specifically reserved for public purpose, viz. for a public park and well. The Corporation further asserts in its counter that the construction was completed without any sanctioned plan and was thus an unauthorised construction on the unapproved lay-out. The Corporation further pointed out that at no point of time was ever any application made by the petitioners as claimed in the petition. In fact, it is claimed that the land allegedly purchased by the petitioners was earmarked for a public purpose as per the approved lay-out in LP/R(CN) 22/83 and that even the 2nd respondent from whom the petitioners purchased the land had no right to sell the same. It is further pointed out that there was never any application given by the petitioners, much less on 10-3-1995. It is further pointed out that while the construction was in progress, petitioners were served with a preliminary notice to stop the construction forthwith and since the petitioners ignored the said notice and completed the construction, a final notice of demolition was served on the petitioners vide Roc No.79695/95/H5 dated 5-10-1995. Therefore, it is pointed out by the Corporation that way back in the year 1995 itself, the petitioners claim that they had filed an application for getting their plan sanctioned is completely incorrect factually.