Disposed

Mr. M.Jaganathan, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC22 Apr 2021WP/10001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition for removal of unauthorised constructions. The Court, without examining merits and directing official respondents to consider a representation and hear other parties, disposed of the petition while allowing action against the petitioner for potential unlawful construction.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider petitioner's representation and dispose of it after hearing all affected parties within six weeks.

Mr. M.Jaganathan, Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.10001 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.10625 of 2021
M.Jaganathan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building, Chennai-03.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Greater Chennai Corporation
Zone-IX, No.1, Lake Area 4 th Cross Street, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
3.F.Venkatalakshmi
4.R.Stalin
5.J.Rajan
6.R.Vikki
7.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
53 & 54, TPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove unauthorised constructions made by the respondents 3 to 5 in the land measuring 450 sq.ft. situated at New No.12/1, Old No.28, Rangoon 1^st Street, Patharisalai Junction, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006, within a period of time to be fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Lavan For Respondents : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok Stdg. Counsel for RR 1 and 2

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner complains of unauthorised constructions by the third to fifth respondents in New No.12/1, Old No.28, Rangoon 1^st Street, Patharisalai Junction, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006.

¶13

The writ petitioner asserts that unauthorised constructions were put up in the year 2009 by the third respondent herein. Consequently, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.23360 of 2009. By order dated 22.12.2009, the said writ petition was disposed of after recording that a stop work notice had been issued to the third respondent. Thereafter, it is stated that the third respondent proceeded with the unlawful construction and that the same resulted in the filing of a contempt petition by the writ petitioner.

¶14

In spite of the stop work notice issued by the official respondents herein, it is stated that the third respondent has completed the construction of the ground and first floor of the building and has also sold portions of the ground and first floor to the fourth and fifth respondents and that the fifth respondent, in turn, has let out a portion to the sixth respondent.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Chennai Corporation, Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and states that there are two aspects to the matter. The first aspect pertains to the construction of a public toilet by the Greater Chennai Corporation. Such public toilet has been constructed with about 12 separate units for use by men and women, in total, and the same is being maintained properly by the Chennai Corporation. As regards the second aspect, namely, the unlawful construction, she states that further action would be taken pursuant to the stop work notice already issued. She also points out that the petitioner has also carried out unlawful construction on his premises.

¶16

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without examining the merits of the matter, the first and second respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 19.03.2021 of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing a reasonable opportunity to all parties affected thereby, including respondents 3 to 6 herein.

¶17

In view of the fact that the merits of the matter have not been examined and because respondents 1 and 2 have been

¶18

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

¶19

directed to hear respondents 3 to 6 before passing orders, the writ petition is being disposed of without notice to respondents 3 to 6 herein. It is also made clear that there is no embargo on the official respondents initiating action against the petitioner in accordance with law, in case the petitioner has erected any unlawful construction.

¶20

W.P.No.10001 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.10625 of 2021 is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶23

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Building, Chennai-03.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Greater Chennai Corporation
Zone-IX, No.1, Lake Area 4 th Cross Street, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
53 & 54, TPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
+cc to M/S.K.Lavan Advocate Sr.No.24538
+cc to M/S.Karthikaa Ashok Advocate Sr.No.24749

¶24

W.P.No.10001 of 2021 PL(CO) baf 04/05/2021

¶25

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

Mr. M.Jaganathan, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M.Jaganathan, 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

M/s.Vip Grand Properties Vs M/s.Canara Bank

K.Rajendran Vs The Chief Secretary

N.S.Subramaniyan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Senthilkumar Vs Secretary to Government

Gem Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adm International Sarl and 2 Others

Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adm International Sarl and 2 Others