Disposed

Ravanaiah, v. J.M.Ahamed Sirajudeen

Madras HC19 Apr 2017REV.APLW/67/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the Chennai Corporation to decide the encroachment issue once for all after hearing all parties. The court maintained the status quo and fixed a deadline for the Corporation to complete the exercise, while closing connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

The Corporation of Chennai is directed to decide the matter once for all by 31 July 2017. Status quo maintained. Review applications and writ petition disposed of.

Ravanaiah, Vs J.M.Ahamed Sirajudeen — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.04.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

¶6

Rev.Aplw.Nos.67 to 69 of 2016 in W.P.No.4897 of 2008 and Rev.Aplw.No.70 of 2016 in W.P.No.11406 of 2013 and W.P.No.14709 of 2015

¶7

& connected M.Ps.

¶8

1.Revanaiah

¶9

2.Chanbasha

¶10

3.Chinna Thirupathi

¶11

4.Achchammal

¶12

5.Aadhinarayanan

¶13

6.Babu

¶14

..Applicants in Rev.Aplw.No.67/2016

¶15

1.Sekar

¶16

2.Mala

¶17

3.Hussain

¶18

4.Venkata Ramesh Babu

¶19

5.Ragu Babu

¶20

..Applicants in Rev.Aplw.No.68/2016

1.Yesu Rathinam

2.Lakshmaiah

3.Shajakhan

4.Pathma

¶25

5.Angaiah

¶26

6.Samuvel

¶27

7.Yovan

¶28

8.Yesiya Babu

¶29

9.Kadhirvel

¶30

10.Dhansekar

¶31

11.Venkatesan

¶32

12.Raji

¶33

13.Devid

¶34

..Applicants in Rev.Aplw.No.69/2016

¶35

¶36

Vs.

¶37

1.J.M.Ahmed Sirajudeen 2.R.Chandra Sekaran 3.B.Abdul Khalid

¶38

4.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Park Town Chennai 600 003.

¶39

5.The Zonal Officer III Corporation of Chennai 71, Dr.Ambedkar College Road Pulianthope Chennai 600 012.

¶40

6.The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶41

7.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board By its Chairman Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶42

8.The Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board Rep. by its Chairman Chennai 600 002.

¶43

9.The Sub Registrar Purasaiwalkkam Chennai 600 007.

¶44

10.Yobu 11.Issac 12.Chittibabu 13.S.Kondaiah 14.Anand Rao 15.E.Venkatayya 16.Daniel 17.Abdullah 18.M.Venkataiah 19.Sheik Masthan

¶45

¶46

20.Narasayya 21.Chenna Reddy 22.B.Venkatayya 23.Ponnaiah 24.Lakshmaiah 25.C.H.Venkataya .. Respondents in Rev.Aplw.Nos.67,68,69/2016

¶47

1.Yobu 2.Issac 3.Yesu Rathinam 4.Sekar 5.Lakshmaiah 6.Anand Rao 7.Shajakhan 8.Pathma 9.Angaiah 10.Samuvel 11.Yovan 12.Yesiya Babu 13.Kadhirvel 14.Dhansekar 15.Chanbasha 16.Venkatesan 17.Hussain 18.Daniel 19.Chinna Thirupathi 20.Raji 21.Achchammal 22.Devid 23.BVenkatayya 24.Venkata Ramesh Babu 25.Ragu Babu 26.Ravanaiah 27.Aadhinarayanan 28.Babu

¶48

.. Applicants in Rev.Aplw.No.70/2016

1.T.Srinivasalu

2.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Park Town Chennai 600 003.

¶53

3.The Zonal Officer Zone VI, Corporation of Chennai Anderson Road, Ayanavaram Chennai 600 023.

¶54

4.The District Collector Chennai District, Chennai.

¶55

5.The Tahsildar Perambur-Prasawalkam Taluk Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

¶56

6.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep. by its Member Secretary Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶57

7.The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶58

.. Respondents in Rev.Aplw.No.70/2016

1.Yesu Rathinam

2.Sekar

3.Lakshmaiah

4.Shajakhan

5.Padma

6.Angaiah

7.Samuvel

8.Yovan

9.Yesiya Babu 10.Kadhirvel 11.Dhansekar 12.Chanbasha 13.Venkatesan 14.Hussain

¶68

¶69

15.Chinna Thirupathi 16.Raji 17.Achchammal 18.Devid 19.Venkata Ramesh Babu 20.Ragu Babu 21.Ravanaiah 22.Aadhinarayanan 23.Babu

¶70

.. Petitioners in W.P.14709/2015

¶71

¶72

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building Park Town Chennai 600 003.

¶73

2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building Park Town Chennai 600 003.

¶74

3.The Assistant Engineer Division-71, Zone-VI Corporation of Chennai Perambur, Chennai 600 012.

¶75

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer/U 16 Corporation of Chennai Jawahar Nagar III Circular Street, Kolathur Chennai 600 099.

¶76

5.The Executive Engineer Zone-VI, Corporation of Chennai Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

¶77

6.The Zonal Officer Zone-VI, Corporation of Chennai Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023. .. Respondents in W.P.14709/2015

¶78

¶79

Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Sec.114 C.P.C. to review the order dated 03.12.2013 in W.P.No.4897 of 2007 and W.P.No.11406 of 2013.

¶80

Writ Petition No.14709 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus

¶81

to call for the records relating to the impugned Ref.No.

¶82

*S.No.*	*Name*	*Reference No.*
1	Yesu Rathinam	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/03/AE.71/2014
2	Sekar	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/04/AE.71/2014
3	Lakshmaiah	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/05/AE.71/2014
4	Aslam Khan	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/07/AE.71/2014
5	Pathma	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/08/AE.71/2014
6	Angaiah	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/09/AE.71/2014
7	Samuvel	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/10/AE.71/2014
8	Yovan	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/11/AE.71/2014
9	Yesiya Babu	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/12/AE.71/2014
10	Kadhirvel	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/13/AE.71/2014
11	Sekar	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/14/AE.71/2014
12	Chandbasha	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/15/AE.71/2014
13	Venkatesan	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/16/AE.71/2014
14	Hussain	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/17/AE.71/2014
15	Chinna Thirupathi	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/19/AE.71/2014
16	Raji	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/20/AE.71/2014
17	Achchammal	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/21/AE.71/2014
18	Devid	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/22/AE.71/2014
19	Venkata Ramesh Babu	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/24/AE.71/2014
20	Ragu Babu	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/25/AE.71/2014
21	Ravanaiah	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/26/AE.71/2014
22	Aadhinarayanan	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/27/AE.71/2014
23	Babu	Z.O.VI.C.No.A1/86/28/AE.71/2014

¶83

¶84

on the file of the 2nd respondent dated 23.12.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners.

¶85

Review Application Nos.67 to 69/2016

¶86

For Applicants : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham

¶87

For Respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

¶88

for Mr.P.R.Ajay Kumar (for RR1 to 3)

¶89

Mr.K.Venkatramani, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.Karthika Ashok for R4 and R5 and Mr.A.Kumar, Spl.Govt.Pleader for R6 and R9

¶90

Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar, for R7

¶91

Review Application No.70/2016

¶92

For Applicants : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,

¶93

Senior Counsel for Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham

¶94

For Respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

¶95

for Ms.V.U.Bindhu (for R1)

¶96

Mr.K.Venkatramani, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.Karthika Ashok for R2 and R3

¶97

and Mr.A.Kumar, Spl.Govt.Pleader for R4, R5 and R7

¶98

¶99

W.P.No.14709 of 2015

¶100

For Petitioners : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham

¶101

For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatramani, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.Karthika Ashok for R1 to R6

¶102

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶103

K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.

¶104

These review petitions are filed by the respondents in W.P.No.4897 of 2007 and W.P.No.11406 of 2013 seeking review of the order dated 03 December 2013 directing Chennai Corporation to take follow up action to remove the encroachment, taking into account the counter affidavit filed by the local authority.

¶105

The petitioners in the review applications filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.14709 of 2015 challenging the notice issued by the Chennai Corporation dated 23 December 2014, calling upon them to remove the encroachment within a period of 15 days, failing which it was indicated that further action would be taken for removal of encroachment. The petitioners have come up with the review applications and writ petition contending that there is no such road as alleged by the petitioners in W.P.No.4897 of 2007 and

¶106

¶107

W.P.No.11406 of 2013 requiring removal. The notice issued by the Corporation is under challenge again on the ground that the local authority was not correct in directing removal of the encroachment without deciding as to whether there was any act of encroachment at the instance of the petitioners.

¶108

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the review applicants and the petitioners in the Writ Petition. We have also heard the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Corporation of Chennai and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 in Review Application Nos.67 to 69 of 2016.

¶109

The respondents 1 to 3 in the Review Applications filed the writ petitions before this Court alleging that the Chennai Corporation failed to take action for removal of encroachment made on the 40' public road, now known as Jamalia Extension Road at Chennai. Before the Writ Court, the Chennai Corporation filed a counter affidavit indicating that they are in the process of removing the encroachment. The Division Bench, taking into account the submission made by the Chennai Corporation, directed the local authority to complete the exercise within a period of six months. It is the said order which is sought to be reviewed by the respondents in those writ petitions.

¶110

¶111

It is also a matter of record that pursuant to the order dated 03 December 2013, the Chennai Corporation issued notice to the petitioners in the review applications who are also the petitioners in W.P.No.14709 of 2013, directing removal of encroachment.

¶112

After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Corporation and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 in Review Application Nos.67 to 69 of 2016, we are of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served by directing the Corporation to decide the issue once for all after hearing all the necessary parties. The applicants in the review applications and the petitioners in the writ petition are given time till 22 May 2017 to file their response, taking into account the notice issued by the Chennai Corporation, which is challenged in W.P.No.14709 of 2015. In short, the notice challenged in W.P.No.14709 of 2015 shall be taken as show cause notice and a reply should be filed by the petitioners.

¶113

The Chennai Corporation is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioners and decide the matter once for all after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3. Such exercise shall be completed on or before

¶114

¶115

31 July 2017. The status quo as on today shall be maintained till

¶116

the disposal of the matter by the Corporation.

¶117

The review applications and the writ petition are disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶118

(K.K. SASIDHARAN., J.) (M.V. MURALIDARAN., J.) 19 April 2017

¶119

gms

¶120

1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings Park Town Chennai 600 003.

¶121

2.The Zonal Officer III Corporation of Chennai 71, Dr.Ambedkar College Road Pulianthope Chennai 600 012.

¶122

3.The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶123

4.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board By its Chairman Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.

¶124

5.The Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board Rep. by its Chairman Chennai 600 002.

¶125

¶126

6.The Sub Registrar Purasaiwalkkam Chennai 600 007.

¶127

7.The Zonal Officer Zone VI, Corporation of Chennai Anderson Road, Ayanavaram Chennai 600 023.

¶128

8.The District Collector Chennai District, Chennai.

¶129

9.The Tahsildar Perambur-Prasawalkam Taluk Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

¶130

10.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep. by its Member Secretary Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶131

11.The Regional Deputy Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building Park Town Chennai 600 003.

¶132

12.The Assistant Engineer Division-71, Zone-VI Corporation of Chennai Perambur, Chennai 600 012.

¶133

13.The Assistant Executive Engineer/U 16 Corporation of Chennai Jawahar Nagar III Circular Street, Kolathur Chennai 600 099.

¶134

14.The Executive Engineer Zone-VI, Corporation of Chennai Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.

¶135

¶136

K.K. SASIDHARAN., J. and M.V. MURALIDARAN., J.

¶137

gms

¶138

Rev.Aplw.Nos.67 to 69 of 2016 in W.P.No.4897 of 2008 and Rev.Aplw.No.70 of 2016 in W.P.No.11406 of 2013 and W.P.No.14709 of 2015 & connected M.Ps.

¶139

19.04.2017

¶140

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ravanaiah, v. J.M.Ahamed Sirajudeen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravanaiah, v. J.M.Ahamed Sirajudeen

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

The Union of India Vs Shri R.Ganesh

Union of India, rep. by its Vs R.Sugapriya

K.J.Arunmozhi, Vs The Chairman

T.Chandrasekaran, Vs The Indian Bank

R.Manimaran Vs The State Level Scrutiny

S.Neethisolan Vs Union of India