INDIAN NATIONAL TRUST FOR ART AND CULTURAL HERITAGE INTAVH Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed as a pro bono publico seeking restraint against the 3rd respondent from exercising her rights over the property, in which the Madras Club is situated. Planning to build a new structure on the said property, by demolishing the old structure, the 3rd respondent has applied to both the first and second respondents for the grant of necessary permissions. The first respondent is the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority vested with the power of granting planning permission, while the second respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Chennai vested with the power of sanctioning permissions for both demolition of existing structures and also construction of new structures in its place.

(2.) The plea of the writ petitioner is that the building with its appertaining land, whole of which ad measure 20 acres, is a heritage building, and it has been identified as such by the Heritage Advisory Committee, which was formed to advice CMDA i.e., the 1st respondent, and being heritage building, it cannot either be permitted to be demolished or to make new construction thereon.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 3 had filed separate counters stating that there is no law to declare the above property as a heritage property, and to restrain the 3rd respondent from either demolishing the same or putting up new structures in its place. It is the specific stand of the 1st respondent that though the government has appointed a Committee in G.O.Ms.No.179 H & UD dated 25.5.1998 to look after the matter relating to enactment of the Heritage Act, no such Act has been enacted, and that Rule 22 of the Development Control Rules is the only law governing the subject.