Partly allowed

V.Purushothaman v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Jul 2023WP/20884/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct the 1st respondent to consider a representation for an extension of time granted by the 1st respondent for submitting a planning permission application and to restrain respondents from interfering with the property pending disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of. 1st respondent to pass orders on merits and give personal hearing within four weeks of receipt.

V.Purushothaman Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

V.Purushothaman

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Government of Tamil Nadu

¶11

Rep.by its Secretary Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Zone – 9 Greated Chennai Corporation Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶13

3.The Assistant Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office-IX Division – 112, Trust Puram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 16.06.2023 for extension of time from the original time fixed in pursuance to the 1^st respondent Letter

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1/5

¶17

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

¶18

No.3561401/UD6(3)/2022-3 dated 16.03.2023 for submitting application for planning permission and also direct the 2^nd respondent to forbear them from in anyway interfering with the petitioner's building situated at 83/57, Sivan Koil Street South Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 particularly by way of locking and sealing and or demolition of the same, pending disposal of the above main Writ Petition.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vembadiyan

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.D.B.R.Prabu for RR2 & 3

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

With consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final

¶23

disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶24

The limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2023, for extension of time from the original time fixed, in pursuance to the 1^st respondent Letter No.3561401/UD6(3)/2022-3 dated 16.03.2023, for submitting application for planning permission.

¶25

According to the petitioner, since 1966, he along with his wife

¶26

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

¶27

Page 2/5

¶28

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

¶29

are residing at 83/57, Sivan Koil South Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Building in the above mentioned subject property was in existence for long period and the petitioner has renovated and repaired the existing structure. While so, the 2^nd respondent issued lock and seal notice on 13.08.2022, under Sections 56 & 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent and the same was disposed of by an order dated 16.03.2023, granting 3 months time to obtain patta and necessary approval for the said building, after rectifying the deviations. Now, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.

¶30

In view of the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinon on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, we direct the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 16.06.2023, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the parties concerned. Such exercise shall be done by the 1^st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3/5

¶33

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

¶34

(J.N.B.,J.) (N.M., J.) Index : Yes / No 14.07.2023 Internet : Yes Jer

¶35

To 1.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Zone – 9 Greated Chennai Corporation Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶36

3.The Assistant Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office-IX Division – 112, Trust Puram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶37

J. NISHA BANU, J.

¶38

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

¶39

Page 4/5

¶40

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

¶41

and N.MALA,J.

¶42

Jer

¶43

W.P.No.20884 of 2023

¶44

14.07.2023

¶45

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

¶46

Page 5/5

V.Purushothaman v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Purushothaman v. Government of Tamilnadu

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.Narayanan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sunmet Holdings India Pvt. Vs The Commissioner

Anthima S Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Lokesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Anchal Vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Helen Moses Vs The commissioner