Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the sealing of a shop. The Court found the petitioner to be an unlawful occupant with no title, holding no enforcement of Article 226 jurisdiction was warranted to restore possession. The petition was disposed of with no costs.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.17562 of 2021 and WMP.No.18665 of 2021
R.Shanmuganathan … Petitioner
Vs
2.The Competent Authority / Executive Engineer Kalaignar Karunanidhi Division Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
.... Respondents
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of 1st respondent in Letter No.4929/HB3(2)/2019-6 dated 09.07.2021 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to restore possession of shop number 7, 30 feet road, Sivan Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai - 600 026 and for consequential orders.
For Petitioner : Ms.Abirami for Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel for R1 & R2
Mr.M.Bindran Additional Government Pleader for R3
ORDER
The petitioner herein is an alleged occupant / sub-tenant of a piece of property, under a certain K.P.Rangabashyam, the alleged original allottee in R.Sy.No.75/1 and 75/5 of Kodambakkam Village, correlated to Old Sy.No.37/34 (part) and 37/64 (part), where he has established a shop bearing No.7.
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
2.2 The case of the petitioner is that he has been in occupation of the aforementioned property since 2006. According to him, the said property was the private holding of a certain K.P.Rangabashyam. Even prior to his occupation, sometime in 2005, the State Highways Department with an intent to acquire the lands for the construction of 100 ft. Road has issued a notification dated 16.11.2005, in the name of Rangabashyam. Thereafter, on 24.01.2019, the second respondent issued a notice in the name of certain M.Durai, demanding arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.22,94,063/- for the property in which he is in occupation. While so, the petitioner's premises have been sealed by the second respondent presumably under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961. Hence, the petitioner and those who are similarly placed have joined to file W.P.No.18120/2020 seeking to de-seal the premises. The present petitioner, along with others, have filed separate appeal under Section 86 of the TNHB Act. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of W.P.No.18120/2020 vide
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
order dated 15.04.2021, with a direction to the petitioners therein to work out their remedy in the appeal that they have filed. By an elaborate order, the appellate authority has held that the property was acquired for the TNHB, and it approved the sealing of the property. This is now under challenge.
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
compensation was paid to him proportionate to the extent over which, he is said to be the registered owner.
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
must be the alleged allottee. And the petitioner has not impleaded him. It is only he who can speak whether the petitioner was inducted in the property by him. So looking from whichever angle, it emerges as a preponderatingly probable inference that the petitioner would only be an unlawful occupier of the plot. Now what better title or a procedural right an unlawful occupant of a property can claim against the lawful owner of the property?
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
like a mercy plea and in the eventuality of TNHB rejecting it, it is underscored that the petitioner might not be vested with anything since direction is given not based on any vested right in the petitioner.
14.09.2023
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds
To:
Kalaignar Karunanidhi Division Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
W.P.No.17562 of 2021
14.09.2023 (4/4)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus should be issued to quash the sealing of a shop and secure possession when the petitioner claims to be an unlawful occupant with no established title.
Whether Article 226 jurisdiction is exercisable to direct the restitution of possession to a petitioner who lacks a recognized legal right or equity.
Whether the Tribunal can be directed to de novo examine a claim by a petitioner who has not impleaded the alleged allottee.
R.Shanmuganathan
Government of Tamil Nadu
Competent Authority / Executive Engineer
Tahsildar Guindy - Mambalam Taluk
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
