R.Jayachandran vs COMMISSIONER, AVADI MUNICIPALITY

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, and is posted for admission. The learned Counsel for the complainant is heard.

THE case of the Complainant is that he applied to the 1st Opposite Party Commissioner, Avadi Municipality on 21.3.94 for a building permission and paid the necessary fee on 29.3.94. He also paid licence fee of Rs. 335/and regulation charges of Rs. 2,752/-. THE plan was not sanctioned, and licence for the building was not granted. Inspite of repeated demands, there was no response. Finally, on 28.10.94, the 3rd Opposite Party Member-Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority sent him a letter stating that the house site of the complainant had been reserved for library and reading purposes and the building is not permitted. THE application was therefore rejected. Alleging deficiency in service in the rejection of the application for building permission, the Complainant has filed this complaint against the Commissioner, Avadi Municipality, the Director of Municipalities and the Member-Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, claiming compensation to the sum of Rs. 5,57,500/- and for an order directing grant of planning permission to the Complainant. The letter of the 3rd Opposite Party, dated 28.10.94 is produced. It reads that as per the approved lay-out, the site under reference is reserved for Library and Reading Room purposes and residential building is not permissible. The complainant was advised to apply for de-reservation of the land. It is against this order the complaint has been filed.

Under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, no person other than Government or Local Authorities shall erect any building or extend any excavation or carry out any mining or other operations or make any material change in the use of the land or construct farm or lay-out any work except with the permission of the appropriate Planning Authority and in accordance with the conditions, if any, specified therein. The permission, in this case, has to be given by the 3rd Opposite Party, Member-Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. It has refused to grant permission. Under Section 79 of the said Act, any person aggrieved by any decision or the order of the Planning Authority under Section 49, may appeal to the prescribed Authority. The remedy of the Complainant is therefore to prefer an appeal against the order of the 3rd Opposite Party dated 28.10.94 refusing the building permission to the Complainant. The Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act cannot sit in the appeal against the order of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. The complainant has misconceived his remedy and filed this complaint. This is not maintainable in law.

IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.