Disposed

K.Latha@Pushpaleela v. Union Territory of Puducherry

Madras HC25 Aug 2023WP/14472/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to issue stop-work notices for unauthorized construction on his property. Court directed the Town Planner to decide the pending appeal by the construction owners within four weeks and disposed of the petition without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 12th respondent to decide pending appeal within four weeks; W.P. dismissed.

K.Latha@Pushpaleela Vs Union Territory of Puducherry — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.14472 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.No.14472 of 2021 and

¶7

W.M.P.No. 15353 of 2021

¶8

K.Latha @ Pushpaleela

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Union Territory of Puducherry Rep.by its Chief Secretary Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶12

2.The Union Territory of Puducherry Rep.by its Secretary Housing Department Secretariat, Puducherry.

¶13

3.The Member Secretary Puducherry Town and Country Planning Authority Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005.

¶14

4.Sivabakkiyam @ Sowbakkiyam

¶15

5.Jagathy

¶16

6.V.Deepika @ Thibiya

¶17

Page 1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.14472 of 2021

7.V.Saranya

8.V.Lakshminarayanan

9.Kuzhanthai @ Unnamalai

¶23

10.L.Manikandan

¶24

11.L.Vinoth Kumar

¶25

12.The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department Government of Puducherry.

¶26

(R12 suo-motu impleaded by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2023 made in W.P.No.14472 of 2021) ... Respondents

¶27

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to issue stop work notice to the unauthorized construction put up by the respondents 4 to 11 herein on the petitioner's property situate in R.S.No.146/3 Cadastre No.2045/1/2 Part to an extent of 1 Kuzhi 09.5/8 Veesams = 922 ½ sq.ft in Thattanchavady Revenue Village, Patta No.822, Uzhavarkarai Municipal Limits, Puducherry, having bounded by East of Manicka Chettiyar Plot, West of Rajasri Plot, South of Munusami Kounder's North side Plot, North of Vazhudhavur Salai, as per provision Section 45 of Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1969 coupled with Section 20 of Puducherry Building Bye-laws and zoning Regulations, 2012.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Page 2/6

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran

¶31

W.P.No.14472 of 2021

¶32

Additional Government Pleader for RR1 to 3

¶33

Mr.M.Manimaran for RR4 to 11

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.,)

¶36

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to issue stop work notice to the unauthorized construction put up by the respondents 4 to 11 herein on the petitioner's property situated in R.S.No.146/3 Cadastre No.2045/1/2 Part, to an extent of 1 Kuzhi 09.5/8 Veesams = 922 ½ sq.ft in Thattanchavady Revenue Village, Patta No.822, Uzhavarkarai Municipal Limits, Puducherry, as per Section 45 of the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1969 coupled with Section 20 of Puducherry Building Bye-laws and zoning Regulations, 2012.

¶37

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the above mentioned property. While so, the respondents 4 to 11 have illegally trespassed into the petitioner's property and started constructing a building.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Page 3/6

¶40

W.P.No.14472 of 2021

¶41

When the same was came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he immediately addressed a detailed representation to the official respondents, specifically to the 3^rd respondent. Since the official respondents did not take any action, he filed the present Writ Petition.

¶42

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that based on the representation of the petitioner the 3^rd respondent sent the refusal cum demolition notice dated 23.09.2021 to the respondents 9 to 11. Aggrieved against the said notice, the respondents 9 to 11 preferred an appeal on 08.10.2021 before the 12^th respondent and the same is pending. Therefore, he would submit that it would suffice if a direction is issued to the 12^th respondent, to dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondents 9 to 11, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶43

4.In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the 12^th respondent to pass orders on the appeal dated 08.10.2021 preferred by the respondents 9 to 11, on merits and in accordance

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Page 4/6

¶46

W.P.No.14472 of 2021

¶47

with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

5.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

(J.N.B., J.) (N.M., J.) 25.08.2023

¶50

Jer Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral citation : Yes / No To 1. The Chief Secretary Union Territory of Puducherry Secretariat, Puducherry. 2.The Secretary Union Territory of Puducherry Housing Department Secretariat, Puducherry. 3.The Member Secretary Puducherry Town and Country Planning Authority Jawahar Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005.

¶51

4.The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department Government of Puducherry.

¶52

Page 5/6

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.No.14472 of 2021

¶55

J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA, J.

¶56

Jer

¶57

W.P.No.14472 of 2021 and W.M.P.No. 15353 of 2021

¶58

25.08.2023

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

Page 6/6

K.Latha@Pushpaleela v. Union Territory of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Latha@Pushpaleela v. Union Territory of Puducherry

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

R.Periyasamy Vs H.Krishnanunni IAS and 8 others

K.Babu Vs The Chairman

A.Jayaraj Vs The Member Secretary

Kavitha Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

D.Natarajan Vs The Secretary to Government

Dr. J.Soundararajan Vs the District Collector