Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Janbee Ammal Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

Home
Madras HC
2017
Janbee Ammal Vs the CommissionerJanbee Ammal v. the Commissioner

Dismissed

Janbee Ammal v. the Commissioner

Madras HC16 Feb 2017WP/24503/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged open drainage construction on her land in Salem. Court found petitioner annexed government land. Writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

Janbee Ammal rep. By her Power of Attorney Mr. D. Bilal Basha .. Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner Corporation of Salem Salem. .. Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from constructing open drainage in the land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Survey No.257/4, T.S. No.1/2, Patta No.1327 at Jagir Ammapalayam, Ward A, Block No.58, Salem measuring 1545 Sq.ft. and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Akbar

For Respondents : Mrs. K. Bhuvaneswari for Salem Corporation O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, to forbear the respondent from constructing open drainage in the land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Survey No.257/4, T.S. No.1/2, Patta No.1327 at Jagir Ammapalayam, Ward A, Block No.58, Salem measuring 1545 Sq.ft.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land comprised in Survey No.257/4, T.S. No.1/2, Patta No.1327 at Jagir Ammapalayam, Ward A, Block No.58, Salem measuring 1545 Sq.ft., by virtue of registered sale deed. While constructing open drainage in the street, the respondent Corporation suddenly started digging the petitioner's land, for continuance of the

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the construction of open drainage on private land is maintainable.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Janbee Ammal
respondent
The Commissioner Corporation of Salem

Coram

AI extract

D. KRIISHNAKUMAR

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 16 Feb 2017 · February
Registered: 30 Aug 2013
Case no.: WP/24503/2013

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from D. Krishnakumar

L.Lakshmi Vs the Taluk Tahsildar
15 Feb 2017
P.Raman Vs the Joint Register of Co-Op
15 Feb 2017
T.K.Beena, Vs the Chairman
15 Feb 2017
State Bank of Patiala Vs the Sub Registrar
16 Feb 2017

Cite this judgement

Janbee Ammal v. the Commissioner, WP/24503/2013 (MAD), decided on 16 February 2017.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

D. KRIISHNAKUMAR

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition challenging the construction of open drainage on private land is maintainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition filed to enjoin Corporation from constructing open drainage on petitioner's land. Corporation showed petitioner had encroached on government land and drain reconstructed to prevent health hazards. Court held respondent did not create new encroachment. Petition dismissed; connected M.P. closed.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

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

open drainage system, without following due process of law. When the same was objected by the petitioner, the respondent had informed that if it is not constructed along the side of the road, through the petitioner's property, it will narrow down the width of the road as there is a temple encroaching the road opposite to the petitioner's property. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although the Government is vested with unfettered power to remove the encroacher from the property belonging to the Government, the respondent is unlawfully, using the private land of the petitioner. The petitioner made several representations but no action has been taken by the respondent and hence this writ petition has been filed, seeking the aforesaid prayer.

Initially, the respondent filed his counter affidavit. Subsequently, as directed by this Court, the respondent again has filed an additional counter affidavit, along with a sketch enclosed with the plan. Learned counsel for the respondent, based on the counter affidavits, submitted that based on the directions of this Court, the officials of the respondent department inspected the premises along with a surveyor on 23.01.2017 and found that the petitioner has annexed upon the Government land, which can be seen from the said plan. He further submitted that the Corporation has reconstructed the drain along the existing alignment of the damaged drain to prevent health hazard to nearby school children and has not intentionally made any new encroachment. Further, the drainage construction has been completed in the year 2013 itself and the same is put to public use ever since.

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent, the statement made in the additional counter affidavit and the plan shown in the sketch filed along with the additional counter affidavit, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

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

avr

To

The Commissioner Corporation of Salem Salem.

+1cc to M/S. S.A. Akbar Counsel for Petitioners, Sr. 10175

W.P. No. 24503 of 2013
and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
SJ(CO)
VR(18/04/2017)

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

CNR

HCMA011262892013

Topic

Landlord and Tenant

Bench

D. Krishnakumar

Disposal

DISMISSED

Akhila.B. Vs Director

16 Feb 2017

M.Vinayagam, Vs the Director

16 Feb 2017