Disposed

B.R.Jayaprakash, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Feb 2021WP/20003/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging interference with property possession, the Court noted disputed facts requiring civil suit. It granted interim protection for three months and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection for three months remains; petition disposed of with liberty to file appropriate civil suit.

B.R.Jayaprakash, Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.NO.20003 OF 2011 AND

¶6

M.P.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2011

¶7

B.R.Jayaprakash ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Madhavaram Municipality, Chennai – 600 060.

¶8

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 13, Dr.Varadharasanar Street, Vedachalam Nagar, Chengalpet – 1.

¶9

The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶10

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003. (R4 Impleaded as per order dated 01.12.2011

¶11

in M.P.Nos.3 & 4 of 2011 in W.P.No.20003 of 2011.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1^st and 4^th respondent from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession of enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property purchased by the petitioner as per approved layout No.21/71 dated 16.12.1971 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Muthukumar

¶17

For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi for R1 & R4 Mr.N.Inbanathan Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ a mandamus to restrain Respondent Nos.1 and 4 from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession of enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property purchased by the petitioner as per approval No.21/71 dated 16.12.1971 issued by the 2^nd respondent the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning.

¶20

2.The case of the petitioner is that the property in question was purchased originally by one V.Prema under the sale deed dated 10.04.1998 from Madras Teachers Co-operative Building Society Ltd. The said buyer subsequently sold the property to one P.R.Vani by a sale deed dated 08.07.1994 who thereafter sold the land to the petitioner's vendor H.Habidabee.

¶21

3.By way of sale deed dated 14.07.1995 petitioner eventually pruchased the property from the said H.Habidabee, under the registered sale deed dated 18.05.2010 registered as document No.3988/10. It is the case of the petitioner that after purchasing of property, the petitoner had put up a fence which was sought to be removed by the respondent stating that the land which was purchased by the petitioner was acutally marked for common area under layout approval No.21/71 which was renumbered as DTP.No.6/73.

¶22

4.In the counter, respondents have stated that the developers namely Madras Teachers Co-operative Building Society had executed a Deed of Cancellation of the Plot Nos.74 to 77 in the old layout i.e. D.D.T.P.No.21/71 and converted the said land to Public purpose land. In the Counter, it has been stated that Madhavaram Municiplaity had given a news publication dated 31.12.1991 and in the Tamil Daily, Daily Thanthi stating that the land in Survey Nos.1476, 1477, 1484 and 1485 at Lakshmipuram, Madhavaram was being alloted for public purpose and had cautioned the public to not to puchase the same. The property was however purchased by the petitioner's predecessor. There are several disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in this summary proceedings.

¶23

5.The petitioner is therefore given liberty to work out its remedy in accordance with law by filing appropriate Civil Suit

¶24

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

¶25

before the jurisdictional Court. It is noticed that the petitioner has enjoyed protection all along from this Court since filing of the Writ Petition.

¶26

6.Considering the same, there shall be a interim protection for a further period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is for the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Civil Court for working out of the remedy and seek further protection from the said Court.

¶27

7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
jas
To
1. The Commissioner,
Madhavaram Municipality,
Chennai – 600 060.

¶29

The Deputy Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 13, Dr.Varadharasanar Street, Vedachalam Nagar, Chengalpet – 1.

¶30

The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶31

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003. +1cc to Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, Advocate, S.R.No.7384 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.8037

¶32

W.P.No.20003 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶33

PMK(CO) CS/30/03/2021

¶34

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

B.R.Jayaprakash, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R.Jayaprakash, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Subramaian and Co. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Noyyal Common Effluent Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Ct

Rank International School Vs the Executive Officer

Sri Om Prakash Soni Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes

Sudha Ravi Vs Income Tax Officer

V.S.Ekambaram, Vs The Additional Commissioner