Page 1

1

       Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10425 OF 2014

The Madurai Corporation ...Appellant.

Versus

P. Kayalvizhi & Anr. …Respondents.

  JUDGMENT

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Application for early hearing is allowed.

2. The respondent no.1 had filed a writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition (MD) No.9854 of

2012,  which  was  allowed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  on  the

following terms:

“6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner is not inclined to put up further construction, there is no need for the petitioner to get permission from the Local Planning Authority. Under  such  circumstances,  recording  the  undertaking  given  by  the petitioner, this Court is inclined to give a direction to the respondents to grant renewal of permission for the construction, so that the petitioner can complete the building work which was already constructed. The affidavit of undertaking given by the petitioner is placed on record. The respondents are directed to grant renewal of permission so that the petitioner can finish the building which was already constructed by her, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly,  the  writ  petition  is  disposed  of  No  costs.”

Page 2

2

The  appellant  -  Corporation  filed  a  Writ  Appeal  being  Writ

Appeal (MD) No.763 of 2013. That was dismissed by the Division

Bench vide order dated 21.8.2013. These decisions are the subject

matter of the present appeal filed by the Corporation.  

3. The principal issue considered by the learned Single Judge of

the  High  Court  was  whether  the  appellant  was  the  Competent

Authority to grant an extension of time to the respondent no.1 for

completing the construction of the building, which was commenced

on the basis of a sanction given by the Local Planning Authority,

Madurai on 25.04.2009. The sanction given by the said Authority

was attached with a condition that the construction of the proposed

building  upto 11 floors,  should  be  completed by  the  respondent

no.1 within two years therefrom. The respondent no.1 within such

period could construct only upto 6 floors. As the respondent no.1

was  unable  to  comply  with  the  condition  of  completing  the

construction  as  per  the  sanctioned  plan  within  two  years,  he

submitted  an  application  on  11.04.2011  to  the  appellant  -

Corporation  for  an  extension  of  time.  The  respondent  no.1  was

called upon to submit an application in Form 8, which requirement

Page 3

3

was compiled by him. The appellant, however, affixed a notice on

the construction site purported to be under Sections 282, 296(1)

and 296(2) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, pointing

out that the respondent no.1 had deviated from the original plan in

respect of (a) lift (b) stair case to the building and (c) instead of a

swimming pool open to the sky, a hall was constructed on the first

floor  of  the  building  under  construction.  Based  on  the  said

proceedings, the Corporation rejected the application submitted by

respondent no.1 for extension of time to complete the construction,

vide order dated 21.06.2012. The respondent no.1 challenged that

order  by  way  of  writ  petition.  During  pendency  of  the  said  writ

petition,  the  respondent  no.1  filed  an  affidavit  cum undertaking

assuring the Authority that he would complete the construction of

the building only up to Ground floor + 6 floors + (1 light roofing

ceiling) and would take corrective steps to remedy the deviations

pointed  out  in  the  notice  affixed  on  the  construction  site.  The

appellant,  however,  contended  that  it  was  not  the  Competent

Authority to grant extension of time as the sanction was originally

granted by the Authority  under  the  Town and Country Planning

Act.  This  contention did  not  find favour  with the  learned Single

Page 4

4

Judge.  As  a  result,  the  learned  Single  Judge  allowed  the  writ

petition  filed  by  respondent  no.1  in  terms  of  order  dated

21.08.2013.  The  operative  part  of  the  said  order  has  been

reproduced in paragraph 2 above. For the same reason, the Division

Bench of the High Court declined to interfere in the writ appeal filed

by the appellant.  

4. The respondent no.1 in the present appeal has reiterated the

plea taken before the High Court that he would not carry on any

further  construction  beyond  Ground  Floor  +  6  floors.  The

respondent no.1 also asserts that the construction of the building

upto  6  floors  has  been  substantially  completed.  Further,  the

building can be put to use if  the  Corporation was to favourably

consider  his  application  for  extension  of  time  to  complete  such

construction.  It  is  contended  that  on  grant  of  extension,  the

construction  will  be  completed  upto  6  floors  in  all  respects

including  by  curing  the  deviations  within  the  extended  time,  in

conformity with the original sanction given by the Town Planning

Authority in that behalf. In other words, the respondent no.1 was

not interested in carrying on with construction of additional floors,

Page 5

5

though sanctioned by the Local Planning Authority of Madurai. In

this backdrop, the appellant was called upon to give its response.

The  Corporation  has  now  taken  an  informed  stand  that  it  will

consider the request of the respondent no.1 for grant of extension of

time to complete the stated construction of the building as per the

Rules  and  provisions  as  may  be  applicable.  This  stand  of  the

Corporation  has  been  communicated  in  writing  to  the  counsel

appearing for the Corporation before this Court.  

5. The  respondent  no.1  through  counsel  submits  that  the

respondent no.1 will abide by the undertaking already given by him

before the High Court and also such terms and conditions as may

be specified by the Corporation. That assurance is accepted.

6. In view of the above, it is unnecessary for us to examine the

wider  question  involved  in  the  present  appeal.  This  appeal,

therefore, can be disposed of in the following terms:

(1) The respondent no.1 shall forthwith submit a

formal application in writing addressed to the competent

Authority  of  the  appellant  Corporation  reiterating  the

assurance given in the undertaking filed before the High

Court; and also to abide by such terms and conditions as

Page 6

6

may be imposed by the Corporation in lieu of acceptance

of  the  proposal  for  extension  of  time  to  complete  the

construction  in  conformity  with  the  original  plan

sanctioned by the Local Planning Authority upto ground

floor + 6 floors. The respondent no.1 must also assure

the Corporation that he will take corrective measures to

remedy  the  deviations  mentioned  in  the  notice  dated

16.05.2012 given by the Corporation and also any other

or  further  deviations  noticed  or  indicated  by  the

Corporation within the time specified in that behalf.  

(2) On  receipt  of  such  written  request  cum

commitment  from the  respondent  no.1,  the  competent

Authority of the Corporation may examine the proposal

and after conducting a survey of the building, record its

satisfaction  that  the  construction  completed  by  the

respondent  no.1  is  in  conformity  with  the  original

sanction  granted  by  the  Local  Planning  Authority  on

25.04.2009 in respect of ground floor + 6 floors + (1 light

roofing ceiling) and also conforms to the applicable Rules

and provisions. If the Authority is satisfied in that behalf,

may  pass  an  appropriate  order  including  to  specify

additional  terms  and  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  the

respondent  no.1  as  a  condition  precedent  for  grant  of

extension  of  time  to  complete  the  construction.  That

decision be taken within 8 weeks from the receipt of the

written request from the respondent no.1.

Page 7

7

(3) Only  after  a  formal  order  is  passed  by  the

competent  Authority  of  the  Corporation  to  grant

extension  of  time  to  complete  the  construction  and

thereafter  issuance  of  a  completion  certificate  upon

removing all the deviations, respondent no.1 will be free

to effectively use and occupy the building for the purpose

for  which  it  has  been  allowed  by  the  Local  Planning

Authority.  

7. We once again reiterate that all other questions raised in this

appeal by the appellant Corporation are left open, to be considered

if and when necessary.  

8. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms with

no order as to cost.             

…………………………..CJI (T.S.Thakur)

…………………………….J. (A.M.Khanwilkar)

New Delhi, Dated: 7th October, 2016