Allowed

Veda Padmapriya v. The Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC1 Oct 2021WP/20838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged lock and seal and demolition notices issued without prior notice to him. Noting pending title litigation but absence of prior notice to petitioner, this Court quashed the impugned order and directed official respondents to serve notice.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of lock and seal and demolition notice dated 22.02.2021; directing respondents to serve notice and take further action in accordance with law.

Veda Padmapriya Vs The Corporation of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 01.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No.20838 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos.22107 & 22131 of 2021

Veda Padmapriya

..Petitioner

Versus

The Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Building, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶10

The Zonal Officer, Zone X, Greater Corporation of Chennai, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.

¶11

Mr.Viswanathan, Assistant Engineer, Division No.136, Unit-30, Zone-10, Greater Corporation of Chennai, No.12, Masilamani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. (Name of R-3, viz., Mr.Viswanathan is deleted as per order dated 01.10.2021 in W.P.No.20838 of 2021)

¶12

4.Natha Murali Krishna ..Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents 1 to 3 in their lock and seal and Demolition Notice Letter No.10/00240/2021, and to quash the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 and to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2021.

¶14

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

¶15

For petitioner

¶16

: Mr.M.S.Krishnan Senior Counsel For Mr.P.Vennitharan

¶17

For respondents

¶18

: Mr.K.Raja Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel

for R1 to R3

Dr.K.Arul for R-4

ORDER

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has agreed to delete the name of the third respondent from the Writ Petition which is filed in personal capacity. Hence, the name of the third respondent, viz.,Mr.Viswanathan, is hereby deleted. The Registry is directed to make necessary amendment before issuing the order.

¶23

The petitioner challenges lock and seal notice and demolition notice issued by the third respondent dated 22.02.2021.

¶24

The learned Senior Counsel Mr.M.S.Krishnan appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent is the life estate holder of the property in dispute, but the official respondents without issuing notice to the petitioner, has proceeded to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction.

¶25

It is submitted by Dr.K.Arul, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that in respect of the title dispute, the issue is pending before this Court in S.A.No.60 of 2019, in which, the fourth respondent has succeeded before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.

¶26

The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr.K.Raja Srinivas would state that admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of the property and the persons claiming to be tenants under the petitioner had already filed Writ Petition Nos. 10387, 10388, 10390 & 10391 of 2021 challenging the de-occupation notice, which were dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2021, however, they were given three months time for vacating the place. Subsequently, the petitioner has inducted new tenants.

¶27

It appears in respect of title over the property, the civil litigations are pending and we neither adjudicate nor render any finding with regard to title in this Writ Petition. However, the fact remains no notice was served on the

¶28

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

¶29

petitioner. Considering the grievance expressed by the petitioner and the submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is quashed. The respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to give notice to the petitioner and take further action in accordance with law.

¶30

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

r n s

¶35

¶36

The Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Building, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶37

The Zonal Officer, Zone X,

¶38

Greater Corporation of Chennai, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam,

¶39

Chennai - 600 024.

¶40

The Assistant Engineer, Division No.136, Unit-30, Zone-10, Greater Corporation of Chennai, No.12, Masilamani Street,

¶41

T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

¶42

+2cc to M/s.M.Balasubramaian, Advocate, S.R.No.51464

¶43

+1cc to M/s.K.Raja Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.51726

¶44

W.P. No.20838 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos.22107 & 22131 of 2021

¶45

BP(CO) RGA(14/12/2021)

¶46

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

Veda Padmapriya v. The Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veda Padmapriya v. The Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Sesharam Vs The Commissioner

E.Kala Vs The District Collector

Adi Tribal Welfare Association Vs State of Tamil nadu

P. Selvarajan Vs K.Kannan, B.Sc.

S.Prakash Vs The District Collector

M/s.The Triangles Vs The Principal Secretary /