Dismissed

K.K.Ramesh v. The Commissioner

Madras HC20 Jul 2015WP/21600/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought writ relief to revoke a building permit and remove unauthorized construction by a third respondent. The Court held that pending civil suits between the parties regarding title and injunction rendered the writ petition premature and otiose, dismissing it without precluding future litigation in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

K.K.Ramesh Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 20.07.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P.No.21600 of 2015

¶7

K.K.Ramesh .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Zone XI,Corporation of Chennai,
Valsaravakkam,
Chennai – 600 087
3. J.Renuga .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2
to revoke the Building Permit granted to the 3 rd Respondent herein
and remove the unauthorized construction being put up by the 3
Respondent at No.3, Agasthiar Street, West Kamakoti Nagar,
Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087, in view of the Petitioner's
Representation dated 04.09.2014 and pass such further or other
orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ashok

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to revoke the Building Permit granted to the 3^rd Respondent herein and remove the unauthorized construction being put up by the 3^rd Respondent at No.3, Agasthiar Street, West Kamakoti Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087, in view of the Petitioner's Representation dated 04.09.2014 and pass such further or other orders.

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

[Order of the Court was Delivered By M.VENUGOPAL, J.]

¶11

The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an Order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to revoke the Building Permit granted to the 3^rd Respondent and to remove the unauthorised construction put up by her at Door No.3, Agasthiyar Street, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087 in view of the Petitioner's representation dated 04.09.2014.

¶12

According to the Petitioner, the residence was actually a vacant land purchased by his father, K.Kannan during the year 1984. His father, after purchasing the vacant land had put up super structure in the year 1998 from and out of his own funds. Further, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his father had bequeathed the premises in his favour by means of a

¶13

Will dated 26.11.1999. Moreover, his father died on 10.07.2001 and he sought a Probate of the Will before this Court in O.P.No.299 of 2004 and since his brother and sister contested the matter, the Original Petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S.No.13 of 2005 and a Judgment was passed in the said T.O.S in his favour on 23.12.2005. After obtaining the Decree in T.O.S.No.13 of 2005, he effected the name change in the Public Records.

¶14

3.The stand of the Petitioner is that the 3^rd Respondent had purchased an immovable property located on the Western Side of his house in the year 2005. On 09.05.2011, all of a sudden, the 3^rd Respondent and her husband had brought with them their henchmen and an Earth Mover and demolished the compound wall of his premises and further excavated a portion of his premises. He filed a complaint before the Police and the same was taken on file and consequently Charge Sheet was filed in C.C.No.315 of 2011 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.

¶15

4.It comes to be known that the 3^rd Respondent had filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction against the Petitioner in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the file of Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee and the same is pending. Also that the Petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.386 of 2014 on the file of Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee to declare the Sale Deeds in favour of 3^rd Respondent as null and void. It appears that the 'Status Quo' Order was passed against the 3^rd Respondent on an Application for Injunction filed by the Petitioner.

¶16

5.The real grievance of the Petitioner is that he made a representation dated 04.09.2014 to the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents praying for an inspection of the subject premises and to cancel the Building Permit granted to the 3^rd Respondent. But the Respondents/Authorities had not acted in accordance with law. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the 3^rd Respondent is proceeding with an illegal and unauthorised construction in a quick pace. Apart from that the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition had taken a stand that the building permission granted by the Respondents/ Authorities to the 3^rd Respondent is to be revoked in view of his representation dated 04.09.2014 and further the unauthorised construction put up by the 3^rd Respondent has to be removed forthwith.

¶17

6.On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Suit filed by the 3^rd Respondent seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction against the Petitioner is pending on the file of Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee. Likewise, the Suit in O.S.No.386 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner against the 3^rd Respondent seeking to Declare the Sale Deeds in favour of 3^rd Respondent as null and void is pending on the file of Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

In as much as the respective parties have approached the competent Court of Law by filing the Civil Suits as referred to supra and the same being pending as on date, this Court is of the considered view that the proper course of action for the Petitioner is to await for the outcome of the pending Civil Suits. Further, this Court opines that the Petitioner cannot maintain parallel proceedings one before the Civil Court and by filing the present Writ Petition. Viewed in that perspective this Court holds that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is a premature and OTIOSE One. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails.

¶20

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the dismissal of the present Writ Petition will not preclude the Petitioner to raise all factual and legal issues before the Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee where the two suits referred to earlier are pending.

¶21

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (J)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ssd
To
1. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Zone XI,
Corporation of Chennai,
Valsaravakkam,
Chennai – 600 087
3.The District Munsif,
Poonamallee.
+1 cc to Mr.J.Ashok, sr.36525
+1 cc to Mr.R.Arunmozhi, sr.37095
W.P.No.21600 of 2015
tm(co)
kra(04/08)

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.K.Ramesh v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Ramesh v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs G.Sowrirajan

R.Sengaliappan Vs The District Collector

R.Pushpalatha Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Bhaskaran Vs The Collector of the Nilgiris

Mr. P.Sambandhan, Vs The Chennai Metropolitan

M.Parthiban Vs The Revenue District Officer