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.