Allowed

Masjidur Rahuman Masjid, v. the Executive Officer

Madras HC8 Jun 2022WP(MD)/11474/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a mosque challenging a notice to produce title deeds and building plans. Relying on deemed approval under Section 220(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act due to inaction by the Panchayat and proof of ownership via sale deed, the court set aside the notice and continued the electricity service connection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication was set aside, and the service connection already effected shall continue.

Masjidur Rahuman Masjid, Vs the Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.11474 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11474 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011

¶7

Masijdur Rahuman Masjid Represented by its President, M.Sheik Ashraf Ali

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Nazerath, Tuticorin District.

¶10

2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Nazareth, Tuticorin. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned communication in Ka.No.Umi.Po/V1Nasa/Ko.Ka/Ko.Ka/A.No.371/11-12 dated 24.09.2011 on the file of the second Respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R-1 : Mr.K.A.Thirumalayappan For R-2 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the communication of the second respondent, under which the writ petitioner was directed to produce the title deeds and building plan permission within a period of 15 days. Otherwise, the service connection would be disconnected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.11474 of 2011

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building plan has been submitted to the first respondent as early as in September 2011 and the same is pending with them. The learned counsel pointed out Section 220 (3) of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act to. In case, the local authority has not communicated to the applicant about the fact of the building plan approval application within a period of 30 days, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed. In the present case, though the application has been presented in the year 2011, so far the first respondent has not taken any decision and intimated the same to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was right in contending that under the deemed provision of Section 220 (3) of the above said act, building plan approval has been deemed to have been granted to the writ petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner in typed set of papers has produced the sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner, Mosque. In view of the above said facts, the impugned communication issued by the second respondent on 24.09.2011 does not require any further enquiry.

¶19

It is seen from the sale deed dated 13.03.2008 that the property belongs to the writ petitioner, Mosque and the building plan is deemed to have been approved in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, the communication of the second respondent is hereby set aside. The service connection already effected shall continue.

¶20

The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (Admin I)

// True Copy //

jbr

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.11474 of 2011

¶29

¶30

1.The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Nazerath,

¶31

Tuticorin District.

¶32

2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Nazareth, Tuticorin.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.S.DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate ( SR-24749[F] dated 09/06/2022 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-25055[F] dated 10/06/2022 )

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.11474 of 2011

¶36

08.06.2022

¶37

MGJ(20.06.2022) 3P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Masjidur Rahuman Masjid, v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masjidur Rahuman Masjid, v. the Executive Officer

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

S. Manickam @ Lakshmi, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Singapulipandian Vs the District Collector

R. Subbulakshmi, Vs the District Collector

R. Pushpam, W/O.Rajamani, Vs the State Rep. by

Sambantham, Vs the District Collector

D. Subbiah Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer