Disposed

G.Raniammal v. Chennai Metropolitan

Madras HC12 Mar 2021WP/31709/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposes of a writ petition seeking a mandate to surrender a shop allotment. The court directed the petitioner to first obtain a no-objection certificate regarding dues from the Market Management Committee within six weeks before the authorities would hand over the shop, subject to the original allottee's rights. Consequently, connected petitions were closed without cos

What did the court decide?

Ordered the petitioner to obtain a no-objection certificate from the Market Management Committee within six weeks; upon production, the respondents must hand over the shop.

G.Raniammal Vs Chennai Metropolitan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.31709 of 2014 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 & 19135 of 2017

¶7

G.Raniammal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Member – Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

¶8

2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore, Chennai -8.

¶9

3.S.Manivannan ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents in their Letter No.K4/17688/99 dated 14.08.2000 and their consequential Letter No.K4/4240/2013 dated 12.11.2014, insisting upon handing over the shop No.B-53, only to the allottee and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to handover the shop B53 to the petitioner herein in accordance with law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.P.Tamilmani Standing Counsel for R1 & R2 O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents in their Letter No.K4/17688/99 dated 14.08.2000 and their consequential Letter No.K4/4240/2013 dated 12.11.2014, insisting upon handing over the shop No.B-53, only

¶14

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

¶15

to the allottee and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to handover the shop B53 to the petitioner herein in accordance with law.

¶16

2.Mr.P.Tamilmani, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd respondent submits that the shop will be handed over to the petitioner, if the petitioner obtains appropriate no objection certificate from the Market Management Committee to the effect that there are no dues in respect of the shop.

¶17

3.Recording the same, this writ petition stands disposed. The petitioner is directed to obtain no objection certificate from Market Management Committee within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On production of such certificate from the Market Management Committee, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents shall hand over to the shop to the petitioner without prejudice to the rights of the 3^rd respondent original allottee.

¶18

4.This Writ Petition stands disposed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶20

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶21

jas To

¶22

1.The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore, Chennai-08

¶23

2.The Chief Executive Officer Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwyn Road, Egmore, Chennai-08

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran Advocate sr15925

¶25

W.P.No.31709 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 & 19135 of 2017

¶26

aa30/03/2021

¶27

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

G.Raniammal v. Chennai Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Raniammal v. Chennai Metropolitan

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

B.Dhavamani Vs the Assistant Executive

Sharad Kumar Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

Mr.Saathappan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

City Medi Tech Industries Vs The Additional Director

Saraswathi, Vs The Chairman