LAKSHMI Vs. SENNEERKUPPAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (C.M.D.A. in short) granted permission to the appellant for forming a layout and developing the property in Senneerkuppam Village, Poonamallee Panchayat Union. THE writ petitioner, namely the President of the Senneerkuppam Panchayat challenged the planning permission on the ground that as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997, it is only the President of the Panchayat, as the "Executive Authority", to whom the application for forming a layout and plot should be made and that no application had been made to the writ petitioner by the fourth respondent (appellant herein). According to the writ petitioner, the land is an agricultural land and cannot be plotted for residential purposes. THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged usurpation of the powers of the Panchayat by the second respondent (C.M.D.A.) by granting the planning permission. Pending the writ petition, stay was sought for and was granted. As against that, this writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, in whose favour the planning permission has been granted, would submit that in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Development Control Rules, it is only the C.M.D.A. which is empowered to grant planning permission and not the President of the Panchayat, and that the C.M.D.A. may either delegate its powers to the Panchayat or withdraw such delegated powers. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there was no justification for the grant of stay.

(3.) ON 1.2.2005, the Member Secretary, C.M.D.A. requested the writ petitioner to forward all the pending planning permission applications pertaining to Senneerkuppam Panchayat jurisdiction to the C.M.D.A. ON 8.8.2005, the C.M.D.A. issued a notice wherein it is alleged that the writ petitioner is not furnishing the performance report or the planning permission application and that the procedure to be adopted was not adhered to. Therefore, the writ petitioner was asked to show cause why the powers of forwarding the planning permission applications to the C.M.D.A. shall not be withdrawn. ON 27.9.2005, the C.M.D.A. issued another notice and once again, time was given to the writ petitioner to send his performance report. ON 11.11.2005, alleging that the President had misused his powers in granting planning permission, the Member Secretary, C.M.D.A. invoked his powers under Section 9-C(3) of the Act and withdrew the delegated powers granted to the writ petitioner.