Disposed

P.Kumaran v. The Chairman

Madras HC4 Dec 2018WP/31871/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the Metropolitan Development Authority to consider the petitioner's representation and objection regarding a pending civil dispute before granting layout approval to third-party applicants, implicitly invoking Article 226 writ jurisdiction without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

The respondents 1 and 2 were directed to consider the petitioner's representation cum objection for granting layout approval.

P.Kumaran Vs The Chairman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. No. 31871 of 2018

¶6

P. Kumaran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. B.Ethiraj, S/o. Late Balarama Reddiyar, residing at No.698, Vinayagar Koil Street, Arikkambedu Village, Vellanur Hamlet, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur Dt.-600 062. 4. B.Murugan, S/o. Late Balarama Reddiyar, residing at No.674A, Palla Street, Arikkambedu Village, Vellanur Hamlet, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur Dt.-600 062. 5. B.Rajavel, S/o. Late Balarama reddiyar, residing at No.674, Palla Street, Arikkambedu Village, Vellanur Hamlet, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur Dt.-600 062.

¶9

K.Parthiban, S/o. Late T.Kalimuthu, Flat No.B-39, 1^st Main Road, Thiruvenkata Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

¶10

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

¶11

S.Marimuthu, S/o. Late C.Subramaniyam, No.19, Santhipuram 1^st Cross Street, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai-600 062. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation cum objection, dated 17.10.2018 and not to provide Planning Permission and Approval for forming layout to the respondents 6 & 7 herein, in respect of the properties, comprised in Survey Nos.573/3 (0.10 cents), 574/8 (0.27 cents), 575/4 (0.50 cents), 577/3 (0.42 cents), 577/4 (0.29 cents) & 609/2 (0.77 cents), measuring to a total extent of 2.35 acres and situated at No.13, Vellanur Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District, pending disposal of the civil dispute.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Ganesh, Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation cum objection for granting the layout approval to the respondents 3 to 7.

¶17

Mr.P.S.Ganesh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of the order is going to be passed in this Writ Petition, which is no way prejudice the right of the respondents 3 to 7, notice to the respondents 3 to 7 is dispensed with.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in Survey Nos. 573/3 (0.10 cents), 574/8 (0.27 cents), 575/4 (0.50 cents), 577/3 (0.42 cents), 577/4 (0.29 cents) and 609/2 (0.77 cents), and there is a civil dispute also pending between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5. Now, pending civil suit, the respondents 3 to 7 are taking steps to get the layout approval from the respondents 1 and 2. Even though the petitioner has sent his representation cum objection to the respondents 1 and 2, it was not considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

Considering the limited prayer sought in the Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the petitioner's representation cum objection for granting layout approval while considering the application of the respondents 3 to 7 seeking for layout approval. In the result, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶21

rpp

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy//
To
1. The Chairman,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

+1cc to Mr.P.S.Ganesh, Advocate, S.R.No.83229
+1cc to Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.83173
W.P. 31871 of 2018
SJ(CO)
KAK(01/02/2019)

¶26

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

P.Kumaran v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kumaran v. The Chairman

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

Bay Resorts Ltd, Vs the Tahsildhar

N.C.Vijayakumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

St.Antonys Church, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Kennedy, Vs the Secretary to Government

Good Shepherd Convent Vs The Secretary

K.Sundararasu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu