Disposed

K.Ganesan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Sept 2023WP/23438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking demolition of unauthorized construction. The Court noted that a three-month appeal period under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act had expired and directed the respondent Corporation to initiate further enforcement action within eight weeks. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to initiate further enforcement action as against the 5th and 6th respondents and complete the same within eight weeks.

K.Ganesan Vs The Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE N.MALA

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

K.Ganesan

.... Petitioner

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings,

¶11

Chennai - 600 003.

¶12

The Zonal Executive Engineer,Zone-1, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.100, Varadarajan Street, Tiruvottiyur,

¶13

Chennai - 600 019.

¶14

The Assistant Engineer, Division No.13, Zone-1, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.100, Varadarajan Street, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600 019.

¶15

The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority of India, Thalamuthu natarajan Maligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

¶19

Gunasekaran S/o Gopalan

¶20

Shyamala W/o Gunasekaran ...Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein more particularly, the 2nd respondent herein viz., the Zonal Executive Engineer, zone.1, greater Chennai Corporation, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai-19, to consider the representation of the petitioner herein dated 05.04.2022 forthwith in demolishing the illegal and unauthorized construction of the buildings at Door No.128/76.C Village Street, Tiruvottiyur, Sathangadu, Chennai-19, comprised in Survey No.202/1.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.K.Senthil Kumaran For Respondents : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for Corporation/ R1 to R3 Mr.C.N.Vinobha, Standing Counsel for CMDA/R4

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(The Order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu,J)

¶25

The above writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus

¶26

to direct the respondents, more particularly, the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2022 forthwith in

¶27

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

¶29

respect of demolishing the illegal and unauthorized construction of the buildings at Door No.128/76.C Village Street, Tiruvottiyur, Sathangadu, Chennai-19, comprised in Survey No.202/1 put up by 5th and 6th respondents.

¶30

Perusal of the records shows that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the officials of Greater Chennai Corporation inspected the property in question and after inspection notice dated 06.01.2021 was issued to the 5th respondent calling for approved plan. Since the 5th respondent failed to comply, the entire building had been treated as unauthorized and further action had been taken by issuing Lock & Seal and demolition notice dated 20.05.2021. In continuation of the same, further action had been taken by issuing de-occupation notice dated 21.09.2021. Thereafter, the building in question was locked and sealed by the officials of Greater Chennai Corporation. The 5th respondent filed an appeal under section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The same was disposed of granting three months time to the 5th respondent and on expiry of the time granted, directed the respondent Corporation to re-seal the building if the 5th respondent fails to obtain necessary planning permission for the said building.

¶31

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

¶33

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.09.2023,

¶34

Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation stated that the period of three months expired on 23.08.2023 and they will initiate the process of enforcement action from 07.09.2023.

¶35

Recording the said statement, the matter is posted today to report the progress made.

¶36

Today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would state that again lock and seal notice was issued and the premises is now under lock and seal.

¶37

In view of the above stated position and the order already passed in the appeal under section 80-A of the said Act, for taking further action, the respondents are directed to initiate further enforcement action as against the 5th and 6th respondents and complete the same in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

(J.N.B.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 12.09.2023

¶39

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi

¶40

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

¶42

¶43

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003.

¶44

The Zonal Executive Engineer,Zone-1, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.100, Varadarajan Street, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600 019.

¶45

The Assistant Engineer, Division No.13, Zone-1, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.100, Varadarajan Street, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600 019.

¶46

The Member-Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority of India, Thalamuthu natarajan Maligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶47

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

¶49

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

vsi

W.P.No.23438 of 2022

12.09.2023

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Ganesan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ganesan v. The Commissioner

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

Mrs.Mumtaj, Vs The Commissioner

A.Radhakrishnan Vs The Vigilance Commissioner

Anitha Raj Vs the President

Dhanatejha Plot Owners Assoc Vs The District Collector

Balaji Asaithambi Vs National Green Tribunal

S.Mahadev Patel Vs The commissioner