Dismissed

N.Ramalingam v. The commissioner

Madras HC1 Dec 2016WP/42275/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash demolition notices under Article 226. The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate authority under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file statutory appeal under Section 80-A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 within two weeks.

N.Ramalingam Vs The commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.12.2016

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶4

W.P.No.42275 of 2016

¶5

and
W.M.P.Nos.36180 and 36181 of 2016
N.Ramalingam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
113, Rippon Building,
Chennai – 3.
2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner
(Central),
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 30.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Zone X, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 34.
4.K.Alfred .. Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order No.ZOX/C.No.4782/2016 dated 20.07.2016 passed by the second respondent and in pursuant to the above order third respondent has passed the impugned order Notice No.ZONE-X/TPENF/0009/2016 dated 23.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to demolish the petitioner's property in New Door No.32, Old No.110, East Vanniar Street, K.K.Nagar – West, Chennai – 78 in any manner whatsoever.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Sumathy

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.R.Arunmozhi for R1 to R3

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)

¶12

Seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 20.07.2016 and 23.08.2016 and to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to demolish the petitioner's property in New Door No.32, Old No.110, East Vanniar Street, K.K.Nagar – West, Chennai – 78, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

2.After making submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to exhaust the statutory remedy available under Section 80-A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶14

3.In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal under Section 80-A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 before the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when the petitioner approaches the appropriate authority under the statute, the said authority shall decide the same without reference to the period of limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

-s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶19

mmi

¶20

¶21

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, 113, Rippon Building, Chennai – 3.

¶22

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

¶23

2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central),

¶24

Greater Chennai Corporation, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 30.

¶25

3.The Executive Engineer, Zone X, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 34.

¶26

+1 cc to Mr.A.Sumathy Advocate sr 71561
+1 cc to Mr.R.Arunmozhi Advocate sr 70704
W.P.No.42275 of 2016
nm(co)
aa20/12/2016

¶27

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

N.Ramalingam v. The commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramalingam 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

S.Umapathy, Vs Thiru S.Sivashanmugaraja, IAS

T.Pandian Vs The District Collector

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Suo-Motu Pil

K.Raju, S/o.Late Mr.Gopal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years Vs The District Collector

Coimbatore Consumer Cause Vs Mr.S.K.Prabakar, Ias.