Disposed

Madan Singh Purohit v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Aug 2016WP/28107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a status quo pending the disposal of pending statutory applications and appeals regarding a building plan approval refusal by the respondent authority, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the applications within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of pending applications and appeal within three months and maintenance of status quo pending such decision.

Madan Singh Purohit Vs The Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:11.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶7

Writ Petition No.28107 of 2016 and WMP.No.24249 of 2016

¶8

Madan Singh Purohit ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Secretary to the Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai-600 008 ...Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 2^nd respondent herein from taking any action pursuant to the notice in Letter No.EC/N-II/18527/2015 dated 02.08.2016 of the 2^nd respondent herein in respect of Petitioner's building bearing Door No.422/5, Thiruvellore High Road, in Survey No.126/1, Almatti Village, Chennai, till the appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, on 08.08.2016 is disposed of by the 1^st respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, for Ms.AL.Ganthimathi

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.E.Balamurugan, Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1

¶12

Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas for R2

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.)

¶16

Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the 1^st respondent and Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, learned counsel accepting notice for the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

The averments in the Writ Petition is as follows:The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property measuring 62 cents in Survey No.126/1, Alamathi Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallore District. The 2^nd respondent issued notice dated 23.11.2015 calling upon the petitioner to restore the land in original condition as mentioned therein within 30 days failing which action will be taken for locking and sealing of the premises. As against the same, the petitioner preferred a statutory application under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act along with stay petition. Further the petitioner had applied for approval of the building plan by application dated 18.12.2015, however, the same was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by proceedings dated 29.04.2016. As against the same, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the 1^st respondent. The petitioner is said to have served with de-occupation notice dated 02.08.2016 by the 2^nd respondent, hence, approached this court for the above relief.

¶18

Since the applications under Section 80A dated 22.12.2015 and the appeal filed under Section 79 dated 08.08.2016 are pending before the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said applications within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity to the petitioner to raise all his contentions. Further, the 1^st respondent is directed to take into consideration the stand of the 2^nd respondent on the refusal of PPA that the site falls within the Red Hills Catchment Area, while disposing the applications filed by the petitioner. Till a decision is taken by the 1^st respondent in this regard, there shall be an order of status quo.

¶19

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. NVSRI Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

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

¶24

¶25

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Secretary to the Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
+ 1 cc to Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate Sr 46322
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Raja Shrinivas, Advocate Sr 46415
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 46148
KR/31/08/16
W.P.No.28107 of 2016

¶26

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

Madan Singh Purohit v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Singh Purohit v. The Government of Tamilnadu

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

State Bank of India, Indl. Vs Dy. General Manager

The Inspector General, Vs G. Murali

The Inspector General Vs S.Chakravarthy

E.Geetha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Ashraf Vs The Secretary

Aircel Cellular Limited Vs Union of India