Disposed

S.Sundaramoorthy, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC24 Apr 2019WP(MD)/3995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice issued for a Smart City Project. The petitioner was directed to vacate the premises but was granted breathing time. He was allowed to vacate within 15 days upon receiving a notice when the works commence, with an assurance to consider reallotment requests after the project completion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to vacate premises within 15 days upon receipt of a notice when Smart City Project works commence; connected petition closed.

S.Sundaramoorthy, Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3995 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3090 of 2019

S.Sundaramoorthy

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner,

Madurai City Municipal Corporation,

¶12

Madurai.

¶13

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent vide Ma.va. 4/027955/18 dated 11.02.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue the possessiona nd occupation of Shop No.596, (Assessment No.6570072), situated in Jancy Rani Park Nagai Kadai Street, Madurai.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

¶16

For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent corporation.

¶19

2.The petitioner is occupying a shop belonging to the respondent corporation. The respondent has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises as they want to implement Smart City Project. The eviction notice is questioned in this writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition.

¶20

¶21

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for the respondents pointed out that similarly placed persons through their association filed W.P.(MD)No.20571 of 2018 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed their writ petitions. He submitted that on that basis the petitioner can be given a breathing time.

¶22

4.This Court is to necessarily bound by the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and therefore the petitioner will have to necessarily vacate the premises, since he cannot be an impediment for the implementation of the Smart City Project. But the question is that when the petitioner should vacate. The works are yet to commence covering the petitioner's premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as on date even the funds have not been sanctioned covering the premises in which the petitioner is now occupying.

¶23

5.The petitioner through his counsel gives a categorical undertaking that the moment, the Smart City Projects are to commence in the area covering the petitioner's premises and the petitioner receives the notice from the respondent, he will vacate the premises within 15 days. The undertaking given by the petitioner through his counsel is placed on record. It is further undertaken by the petitioner through his counsel that he will not ask for any modification or extension of the order now passed.

¶24

6.This Court can take note of the fact that all the allotees and tenants occupying the premises belonging to the corporation have been directed to vacate with an assurance that their request for reallotment, after the Smart City Project is completed, would beconsidered. Such a direction to consider has been given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in many cases. The writ petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit which similarly placed or displaced tenants will be entitled to.

¶25

7.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(AD-I)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶30

¶31

1.The Commissioner,

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai.

¶33

¶34

2.The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai.

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.T.S.MOHAMED MOHIDHEEN, Advocate in SR-62401

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI, Advocate in SR-62689

¶37

WP(MD)No.3995 of 2019 and WMP(MD)No.3090 of 2019

¶38

PNN PK/13.05.2019 : 3P/5C

¶39

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

S.Sundaramoorthy, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sundaramoorthy, 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

R.Nepoleon, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kaveri Vs Senior Branch Manager

Booma, D/O.Chinnathami, Vs the District Collector

Jeyaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Rafi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sundaravel Ramesh Vs the Passport Officer