Disposed

Munusamy v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Oct 2020WP/14842/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in a writ petition challenging demolition proceedings, directed the First Respondent to expedite the pending appeal/special revision under the Town and Country Planning Act and grant interim stay. The Court restrained the executing authorities from demolition and forbade the petitioner from altering the superstructure until disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the First Respondent to take up the appeal within three weeks and grant interim stay; restraint on respondents 3 to 5 from demolishing; restriction on petitioner to alter physical feature

Munusamy Vs The Secretary to Government — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 16.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

WP.No.14842/2020 & WMP.No.18443/2020

¶7

Munusamy ..Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Secretary to Government Hosing and Urban Development Department, Fort St George Chennai 600 009.

¶10

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai.

¶11

The Assistant Engineer Division No.043, Corporation of Chennai Tondiarpet, Chennai.

¶12

The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit-10, Division No.043, Corporation of Chennai Tondiarpet, Chennai.

¶13

The Executive Engineer Zone – 04, Corporation of Chennai Tondiarpet, Chennai. 6. Mr.Sateesh Kumar ..Respondents

¶14

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 or anybody on their behalf from initiating any coercive action of demolition with regard to the property situated at No.55[20], Vinayagapuram Main Road, Vinayagapuram, Chennai 600 013, measuring around 400 sqft., pending determination of the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 80-A [special provisions of the Government] of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 dated 19.02.2020 with the 1^st respondent filed against the Lock and Seal Notice and demolition notice in Letter No.04/00041/2019 date 12.12.2019 issued by the 3^rd to 5^th respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.P.Meenakshi Sundaram For R1 : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader For RR 2 to 5 : Mr.K.Raja Srinivas Standing counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

¶19

(2)MrP.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 5.

¶20

(3)A perusal of the materials would prima facie disclose that the petitioner had unauthorizedly put up some construction without any Planning Permission and challenging the Locking and Sealing and Demolition Notice dated 12.12.2019 issued under Section 57 read with 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, by the respondents 3 to 5, filed an appeal/statutory revision under Section 80A of the said Act before the 1st respondent and pending disposal of the same, also prayed for interim orders.

¶21

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the acknowledgment of the appeal petition was also given on 19.02.2020 and even now, neither the petition for stay nor the main appeal/special revision has been taken up and taking advantage of the same, respondents 2 to 4 are proceeding further to demolish the alleged offending construction and prays for appropriate orders.

¶22

(5)This Court heard the submissions of Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶23

(6)Though the petitioner had prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his appeal / special revision filed before the 1^st respondent or in this writ petition, directs the 1^st respondent or the delegated authority to take up the appeal/special revision in Letter No.04/0041/2019 dated 12.12.2019, if the papers are otherwise in order and take up the prayer for interim stay initially and give a disposal in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, respondents 3 to 5 shall defer further decision as to the demolition of the alleged offending construction. It is also open to the 1^st respondent / delegated authority to accord

¶24

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

¶25

priority and dispose of the main appeal/special revision itself on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petitioner, till the disposal of the appeal/special revision by the 1^st respondent, shall not alter the physical features of the superstructure and shall not create any third party rights in respect of the land and superstructure in question.

¶26

(7)The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶28

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Hosing and Urban Development
Department, Fort St Geroge
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai.
3.The Assistant Engineer
Division No.043,
Corporation of Chennai
Tondiarpet, Chennai.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer
Unit-10, Division No.043,
Corporation of Chennai
Tondiarpet, Chennai.
5.The Executive Engineer
Zone – 04
Corporation of Chennai
Tondiarpet, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.K.Rajasrinivas, Advocate, sr no.34542
+1cc to Mr.Meenakshisundaram, Advocate, sr no.34577
+1cc to Government Pleader, sr no.34760
WP.No.14842/2020
SVI(CO)
RMP(01/12/2020)

¶29

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

Munusamy v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munusamy v. The Secretary to Government

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

Manmohan Singh Jain, Vs The Authorized Officer

Dr.Anantharaj Vs The District Collector

R.Malarkodi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Ashraf Ali Vs The District Collector

V.Sadhanandham Vs The District collector

Smm.Mohammed Shashul Hameed Vs Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority