Disposed

Prasanraj Kanchariya v. The Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC21 Apr 2016WP/14659/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to consider the petitioners' interim stay application under Section 80-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act within two weeks and maintain status quo until decided, restraining the petitioners from further construction, without examining the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of sans costs. The third respondent is directed to consider the interim relief application within two weeks and maintain status quo.

Prasanraj Kanchariya Vs The Corporation of Chennai — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. No.14659 of 2016 and W.M.P. No.12830 of 2016

¶6

1 Prasanraj Kanchariya 2 Kancharmal Petitioners (represented through POA Dilip Kumar) S/o Ramesh Kumar)

¶7

vs.
1 The Corporation of Chennai
represented by its Commissioner
Ripon Buildings
Chennai 600 003
2 The Executive Engineer
Town Planning (Enforcement)
O/o Regional Deputy Commissioner (North)
Corporation of Chennai
Basin Bridge Road
Chennai 600 021
3 The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009 Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 or anybody on their behalf from initiating any coercive action of locking and sealing and demolition with regard to the building put up at No.47 (Old No.24), Bunder Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079, pending determination of the revision petition submitted by the petitioners under Section 80-A and 80-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, dated 31.03.2016.

¶9

For petitioners Mr. P. Ramanathan

¶10

For RR 1 & 2 Mr. V.C. Selvasekaran, Standing Counsel

¶11

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

¶12

For R3

¶13

Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(delivered by SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶16

Mr. V.C. Selvasekaran, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the third respondent. With consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶17

2 This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 and 2 or anybody on their behalf, from initiating any coercive action of locking, sealing and demolition with regard to the building put up at No.47 (Old No.24), Bunder Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079, pending determination of the revision petition (sic) application preferred by the petitioners under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) and interim application preferred under Section 80-A(3) of the Act by the third respondent-Government.

¶18

3 From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the Corporation of Chennai, has issued a locking, sealing and demolition notice on 19 February 2016 under Section 57 read with Section 85 of the Act against the petitioners. Thereagainst, the petitioners have preferred an application before the third respondent under Section 80-A of the Act on 31 March 2016, which is under consideration. It is further seen that along with the said application, the petitioners have also filed an application for interim stay in terms of the provisions of Section 80-A(3) of the Act.

¶19

4 Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that if an application, as aforestated, is filed along with an application for interim relief, the officers are well advised to consider the application for interim relief at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two weeks, to avoid further complications.

¶20

5 Accordingly, we direct the third respondent to consider the petitioners' application for interim relief as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks and also to consider the petitioners' main application within the statutory period prescribed under the provisions of law, on its own merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Lalithkumar C. Soni Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others¹ . It is made clear that for a period of two weeks from today, i.e., 21 April 2016, status quo as obtained today, in respect of the

¶21

1 2015 (6) CTC 107 : (2015) 7 MLJ 394 : 2015 (2) CWC 752

¶22

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

¶23

property in question, shall be maintained by both the parties and the petitioners are restrained from making any further construction in the property in question.

¶24

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of sans costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Asst.Registrar (CS III )

¶27

/true copy/

¶28

Sub Asst. Registrar
cad
To
1 The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Ripon Buildings
Chennai 600 003
2 The Executive Engineer
Town Planning (Enforcement)
O/o Regional Deputy Commissioner (North)
Corporation of Chennai
Basin Bridge Road
Chennai 600 021
3 The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
1 cc to Mr.R. Mohan, Advocate, Sr. 24489
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 24928
W.P. No.14659 of 2016
LRS (CO)
kk 2/5

¶29

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

Prasanraj Kanchariya v. The Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanraj Kanchariya v. The Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R Venkatesan Formerly Daily Vs the Director of Anmal

Mr. M. Velu Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Veeramani, S/o.Palanisamy Vs Authorized Officer

M/s.Sunciti Apartment Owners Vs Chief Executive Officer &

M.Ahamed Uduman, M.a., Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s.State Bank of India, Vs The District Collector