Partly allowed

M.Yasmine v. The Commissioner

Madras HC3 Jun 2021WP/12356/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, hearing a writ petition challenging lock and seal affixed on petitioner's property, directed respondents to remove it immediately to enable rectification per sanctioned plan. A one-month deadline was given; failure to comply would warrant re-sealing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to remove lock and seal to enable rectification. Failure to rectify within one month permits respondents to re-lock and seal premises.

M.Yasmine Vs The Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 03.06.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶6

W.P. No.12356 of 2021

¶7

M.Yasmine ... Petitioner Versus

¶8

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003.

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, 61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai 600 021. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith remove the lock and seal affixed on 31.12.2020 in the petitioner's property situated at Old No.35, New No.65, Ratan Bazaar Road, (Erusappa Maistry Street), Park Town, Chennai 600 003, comprised in R.S.No.10335 Block No.84 of VOC Village, so as to enable the petitioner to rectify and restore the said premises in conformity with the sanctioned plan and in consonance with the present development rules 2019 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2021.

¶11

ORDER (The Order of the Court was made by R.Subbiah, J) The Writ Petition is heard through video conferencing.

¶12

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to forthwith remove the lock and seal affixed on 31.12.2020 in the petitioner's property situated at Old No.35, New No.65, Ratan Bazaar Road, (Erusappa Maistry Street), Park Town, Chennai 600 003, comprised in R.S.No.10335

¶13

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

¶14

Block No.84 of VOC Village so as to enable the petitioner to rectify and restore the said premises in conformity with the sanctioned plan and in consonance with the present development rules 2019 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 25.02.2021.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Corporation of Chennai.

¶16

Since the prayer itself is self-explanatory and given the limited nature of relief sought for in this Writ Petition, this Court is not traversing into the averments made in the affidavit. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents to remove the lock and seal in respect of petitioner's premises at Old No.35, New No.65, Rattan Bazaar Road, (Erusappa Maistry Street), Park Town, Chennai, so as to enable the petitioner to rectify and restore the said premises in conformity with the sanctioned plan. In the event of petitioner failing to rectify the subject premises within a month, the respondents are directed to proceed further to lock and seal the premises.

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above
direction. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai 600 021.
+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate Sr.27379

¶18

W.P. No.12356 of 2021

¶19

rgn[co] srg 09/06/2021

¶20

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

M.Yasmine v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yasmine 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

K.Saminathan Vs The District Collector

Bharathi Vs The Commissioner

Saroja Vs Parvathy W/O Devarajan

M/S.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sathish Kumar

A.Gajapathy Vs a.Baskaran

D. Shankar Vs R. Jayakumar