Disposed

K.Ravikumaran v. The Commissioner

Madras HC27 Apr 2016WP/11245/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking demolition of unauthorized construction by the neighbor. The Court, noting the Corporation had already initiated proceedings, adjourned disposal to direct the Corporation to take consequential action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation to take consequential action as per law on its own merits within four weeks.

K.Ravikumaran Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.04.2016

¶3

CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P. No.11245 of 2016
and
W.M.P.Nos.9760 and 9761 of 2016
K.Ravikumaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Assistant Town and Country Planning
(East) Zone, Coimbatore.
3. Assistant/Junior Planning Officer,
Ward No.57, Coimbatore.
4. Assistant Revenue Officer,
East Zone, Coimbatore.
5. The Commissioner,
Town and Country Planning
Office, Tatabad, Coimbatore.
6. The Chief Engineer,
TNEB, Tatabad, Coimbatore.
7. The Assistant Engineer,
Sowaripalayam, New Scheme Road,
Coimbatore.
8. The District Collector,
Coimbatore.
9. The Secretary,
PSG Co-op. Housing Building Society
Ltd., Avinashi Road,
Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 4.

¶4

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

¶5

10.The Secretary,

¶6

G.V.Residency Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam, GV Residency,

¶7

Coimbatore.

¶8

11.A.N.Balasubramaniam

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 herein to demolish the unauthorised construction in Site No.86 of GV Residency, Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Easan For Respondents : Mr.J.Sathyanarayana Prasad for R1 to R7 Ms.A.Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader for R8 Mr.N.S.Nandakumar for R11 R9 & R10 - Not ready in notice ORDER (Order of the Court was made by SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶12

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7, learned Special Government Pleader for the 8th respondent and the learned counsel for the 11th respondent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

2.Seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 5, to demolish the unauthorised construction in Site No.86 of GV Residency, Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶14

3.The brief facts of the case are that the 11th respondent herein is the neighbour of the petitioner and he had been conveyed with a vacant land in Site No.86 on condition that he shall construct a dwelling house within five years from the date of commencement of the title. Suppressing the same, the 11th respondent obtained planning permission in the year 2013 and constructed a building unauthorisedly. Noticing the unauthorised and illegal construction, the petitioner made a representation dated 05 February 2016 to respondents 1 to 10. Since no action is taken, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

¶15

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

¶16

4.In response to the notice, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 25 April 2016. On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is evident that the 11th respondent has made deviations, for which, a notice under the provisions of Sections 282(1) (2), 296 (1) and (2) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (for short "the Act") dated 09 April 2016 was served on him. Thereafter, as submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent, confirmation notice has been issued under Section 296(3) of the Act on 25th instant, as no response has been submitted by the petitioner.

¶17

5.In the given facts situation, when the Corporation has already initiated process under the provisions of law, we are not inclined to proceed further to dispose of the matter. However, we direct the Corporation to take consequential action as per law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks.

¶18

6.With the aforestated observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶20

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

mmi To 1. The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Town and Country Planning (East) Zone, Coimbatore.

¶22

1. The Assistant/Junior Planning Officer, Ward No.57, Coimbatore. 4. The Assistant Revenue Officer, East Zone, Coimbatore.

¶23

The Commissioner, Town and Country Planning Office, Tatabad, Coimbatore.

¶24

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

¶25

The Chief Engineer,

¶26

TNEB, Tatabad, Coimbatore.

¶27

The Assistant Engineer, Sowaripalayam, New Scheme Road, Coimbatore.

¶28

The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.M.Easan, Advocate, S.R.No.26444

¶30

+1cc to Mr.J.Sathyanarayana Prasad, Advocate, S.R.No.26262 +1cc to Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.27850

¶31

W.P. No.11245 of 2016
RSY(CO)
CA(05/05/2016)

¶32

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

K.Ravikumaran v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ravikumaran v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Kanakaraj Vs Kannegi Packianathan IAS

Mukesh Kumar Jain, Vs The Corporation of Chennai

M.Utthama Asirvatha Udaiyar, Vs The Commissioner

R.Keerthivarman Vs a.Annammal

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

V.Kittu Vs The District Collector