Disposed

Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan v. Commissioner

Madras HC10 Jan 2017WP/14719/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions challenging a notice issued under the Madras City Municipal Act regarding a wall between two properties. Since the wall was partially removed, the interim injunction became infructuous. The court directed an inspection to be completed within three months and closed the miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for inspection and final decision within three months; Writ Petitions disposed of; Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan Vs Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.Nos.14719 & 15386 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 W.P.No.14719 of 2015 R.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner -Vs1. Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai. 2. Executive Engineer, Zone No.14 (Kottivakkam) Corporation of Chennai, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41. 3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit-41 (Kottivakkam) Corporation of Chennai, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41. 4. Assistant Engineer, Division 183 (Kottivakkam) Corporation of Chennai, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41. 5. The President, Raja Garden, Kalyani Nagar & Karpagambal Nagar Welfare Association, 2/173, Raja Garden 2^nd Street, East Coast Road, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. ... Respondents (Respondent No.5 impleaded as per the order dt.30.6.2016 in WMP.No.16954/2016)

¶6

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

W.P.No.15386 of 2015

... Petitioner

P.Ponthangavelu

-Vs-

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai.

¶12

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zonal Office No.14, Corporation of Chennai, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041. 3. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. 4. Inspector of Police, Neelangarai Police Station, Neelangarai. 5. Gopalakrishnan ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition No.14719 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondents 2 to 4 dated 24.4.2015 a notice issued under Section 220 of Madras City Municipal Act, IV of 1919 in respect of the wall of 8 feet x 6 feet in between Raja Garden 2^nd street (in Survey No.232) and Venkateswara Garden Road (Survey No.238/4C1 A1 and 238/4D1A), Kottivakkam village, Division No.183, Unit No.41, Zone No.14 and quash the same.

¶14

Writ Petition No.15386 of 2015 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 5^th respondent for blocking the road by constructing the wall between Raja Garden, 2^nd Street and Venkateswara Garden, Kottivakkam, Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran in W.P.No.14719/2015 Mr.S.Sethuraman in W.P.No.15386/2015

¶16

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

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for R1 to R4 in W.P.14719/2015

¶18

Mr.G.Senthilkumar for R5 in W.P.14719/2015

¶19

Mr.Saravanan for R1 & R2 in W.P.15386/2015

¶20

Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Spl. G.P. for R3 & R4 in in W.P.15386/2015

¶21

Mr.K.Sukumaran for R5 in W.P.15386/2015

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶24

There are two counter petitions arising from the wall in question being removed and the prayer being made not to put up the wall. The relief of interim injunction has really become infructuous, as it is alleged that out of 6 feet wall, 4 feet wall has already been removed, by the time the interim order was served.

¶25

Faced with the aforesaid position, the learned counsel for the Corporation states that an inspection will be caused of the area in question, after notice to all concerned, including the two sets of the petitioners and a final decision will be taken in respect of the arrangement which has to prevail. The exercise be undertaken and concluded within a maximum period of three months of the receipt of the copy of this order.

¶26

The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur/respondent No.3 in W.P.No.15386 of 2015 along with the Surveyor will give the assistance for demarcation purpose.

¶27

The writ petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 are closed.

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

bbr

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai.

¶35

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zonal Office No.14, Corporation of Chennai, Kottivakkam, Chennai-600 041.

¶36

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. 4. The Inspector of Police, Neelangarai Police Station, Neelangarai. 5. The Executive Engineer, Zone No.14 (Kottivakkam) Corporation of Chennai, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

¶37

Assistant Engineer, Division 183 (Kottivakkam) Corporation of Chennai, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.K.Sukumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.2338 +1cc to Mr.S.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.2450 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.2474

¶39

W.P.Nos.14719 & 15386 of 2015

¶40

UG(CO) CA(20/01/2017)

¶41

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

Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan v. 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

Mrs.Dhanam, Vs The Commissioner

R.Sathyamurthy Vs The Commissioner

K.Nithiya Vs The District Collector

N. Ranga Rao & Sons Private Vs Kanti Devi, Propretrix, Chamuu

S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Vs Church of South India

S.T.Rajendran Vs The Executive Officer