Disposed

Venkatachalam v. the Commissioner

Madras HC5 Sept 2017WP(MD)/13342/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking demolition of unauthorized construction was dismissed in the interest of justice due to pendency of a civil suit between parties. Directions were instead given to the Corporation to continue lawful follow-up on the building plan.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without issuing the direction to demolish; the Court directed the Corporation to follow up on the building plan approval.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.09.2017

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.13342 of 2017 and

¶5

W.M.P.(MD).No.10400 of 2017

Venkatachalam

: Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.

¶11

Jambunathan

¶12

Dhanalakshmi : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents one and two to demolish the unauthorized construction made in No.15, Melaulvithi, Thiruvanikovil, Trichy-620 005, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak For R.1 & R.2 : Mr.N.S.Karthigeyan Standing Counsel For R.3 & R.4 : Mrs.J.Anandhavalli

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ]

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents 1 & 2 to demolish the unauthorized construction made in No.15, Melaulvithi, Thiruvanikovil, Trichy-620 005.

¶19

2.The writ petitioner and the private respondents are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ neighbours. The said respondents 3 & 4 had filed O.S.No.470 of 2003, before the I Additional District Munsif, Trichy, against the

¶20

¶21

writ petitioner in respect of the Western side wall and the same was also decreed. The writ petitioner has filed an appeal, questioning the said decree. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents that this writ petition is an out-come of malice appears to be justified.

¶22

3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the Corporation has already issued Stop Work notice on 13.07.2017.

¶23

4.Therefore, considering the nature of construction put up by the respondents 3 & 4 and the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties, we do not wish to issue any direction as prayed for. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents three and four that the building plan has already been submitted for approval. It is the duty of the respondents 1 & 2 to take follow up action in the manner known to law.

¶24

5.With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.

¶31

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶32

Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.

¶33

+1cc to Mr.C.Deepak, Advocate Sr.No.76817

¶34

TSG

¶35

VB/MR/KKR/SAR4/09/11/2017/2P/4C

¶36

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

¶37

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13342 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).No.10400 of 2017 05.09.2017

Venkatachalam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachalam 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

The Chairman and Managing Vs N. Indirani

I.Devaram Justin, Vs the District Collector

Raj Vs the District Collector

P. Duraisamy, Vs the District Collector

Mohammed Riyas Bazul Ashab Vs the District Collector

Kaluvan, S/O.Muthuveeran, Vs the District Collector