Dismissed

S.Nachiappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Nov 2020WP/15006/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court directed the petitioner to avail the alternative appeal remedy available under Section 113(A)(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, within two weeks instead of proceeding with the present writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy under Section 113(A)(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 within two weeks.

S.Nachiappan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

WP.No.15006/2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 03.11.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
WP.No.15006 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.18682 of 2020
S.Nachiappan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil nadu
rep. By its Secretary to Government
Housing & Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
rep.by its Member Secretary,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
3.The Commissioner,
1/4

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

WP.No.15006/2020

¶9

Greater Chennai Corporation,

¶10

Chennai 600 003.

¶11

Prayer:- Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in respect of Letter No.Reg.MSB/C/6/52242/2000 dated 21.09.2020 of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's Flat bearing No.7, Third Floor, Plot No.41, T.S.No.35672/20 Block NO.71, Luz Avenue, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶12

Heard the submission of Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel appearing for the

¶13

petitioner and Mr.Karthik Rajan, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

2/4

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

WP.No.15006/2020

¶17

The matter in issue pertains to the impugned order of rejection

¶18

passed by the 2nd respondent as to the regularisation of the exiting individual flats at Door No.7, Third Floor, Plot No.41, T.S.No.35672/20 Block No.71, Luz Avenue, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶19

After some arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that since the petitioner is

¶20

having an effective alternative remedy under Sub-Section 6 of Section 113(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, he may be permitted to avail the said remedy and also instructs the counsel on record to send necessary endorsement to the Registry of this Court through e-mail.

¶21

Heard Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader for

¶22

the 1^st respondent, Mr.Karthik Rajan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶23

3/4

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

WP.No.15006/2020

¶26

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND R.HEMALATHA.,J. sk

¶27

In the light of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn

¶28

and if the petitioner is so advised and if it is available to him under law, he is always at liberty to avail the appeal remedy under Section 113(A)(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the 1^st respondent and upon receipt of the same, the 1^st respondent may entertain the appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order without insisting on limitation and give a disposal on

¶29

merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶30

Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the

¶31

counsel on record subject to necessary endorsement.

¶32

sk Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶33

WP.No.15006 of 2020

¶34

4/4

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.Nachiappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nachiappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

M/s.Telescreen Communication Pvt. Ltd, Vs Indian Overseas Bank

R.Rohini Vs The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee

P.Shanmugasundaram Vs The Authorized Officer

B.Shankar Vs Union of India

Kaladevi Vs The District Collector

M.Gnanavoli Vs The Principal Secretary