The Hindu 13.08.2012
Supreme Court stays demolition of multi-storeyed building
The Supreme Court has stayed the demolition of an unauthorised multi-storied building on Aziz Mulk Street in Thousand Lights on Anna Salai.
A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya stayed the order passed by the Madras High Court directing the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Chennai Corporation to demolish the building. (Subsequent to the order, which was sent through fax, the authorities stopped the demolition.)
The Bench passed this order after hearing counsel Anand Padmanabhan, appearing for the appellant, V.M. Gangadharan, owner of an adjacent property, who was not a party to the dispute in the High Court.
In its brief order the Bench said, “Issue notice. Permission to file the SLP is granted. Meanwhile, the impugned order of the High Court insofar as it directs the authority to demolish the unauthorised construction raised by the third respondent, Ms. Mumtaz Begum, in the writ petition, shall remain stayed. We further direct that the CMDA will decide the matter regarding regularisation of the buildings as directed in the communication dated June 18, 2007 of the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, Tamil Nadu, within a period of eight weeks after hearing the concerned parties.”
A petition filed by Muslim Educational Society alleged that Mumtaz Begum, to whom the building was leased out, had started constructing a multi-storeyed building on the land. It was alleged that she made illegal constructions after the termination of lease deeds. The High Court while slapping Rs.1 lakh exemplary cost on the woman, ordered demolition of the illegal constructions. A special leave petition was filed by V.M. Gangadharan, against this order dated July 3.
The appellant said though he was not a party to the proceedings in the High Court, it had made certain adverse orders and observations against him which if not interfered would lead to serious consequence for him and also would affect the proceedings before the CMDA for regularisation. He contended that he got permission and sanction for construction of two floors in 2002 and for the existing structure prior to 1993.
He said the question for determination was whether the High Court could have ordered demolition of property Door No 8 [that of the society] which was not only contiguous with Door No. 7 but would also affect his other legal rights. He sought a direction to stay the demolition.
