Dismissed

Selvi. S.Kaveri v. The Member Secretary

Madras HC11 Oct 2023WP/3348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the construction on land claimed as ancestral property, seeking direction to authorities under the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act 1919. The Court found planning approval had been granted for the building, holding no further order was needed and dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as no further order was required since planning approval had been granted for the building.

Selvi. S.Kaveri Vs The Member Secretary — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.No. 3348 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.3939 of 2022

¶7

Selvi.S.Kavere ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Member Secretary CMDA Office, Thalamuthu Natarajan House, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008.

¶10

2.Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai - 600 003.

¶11

Zonal Executive Engineer, ( Zone VII) Thiruvallur High Road, Opposite to Dunlop, Chennai -600 053

¶12

Page No:1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶15

4 Alok Kumar Gulecha

¶16

5 The Director,

¶17

The Directorate of Town and Country Planning 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor C9E Market Road Koyambedu Chennai 600107.

¶18

6 Assistant Director Town and Country Planning Thiruvallur Office 43/397, A 2nd Floor, Annai Indira Gandhi Salai Rajajipuram, Phase II, Thiruvallurpuram, Thiruvallur District.

¶19

7 The Commissioner Avadi City Municipal Corporation

¶20

Avadi, Chennai 600054. ..Respondents

¶21

(R5 TO R7 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT 19.06.2023 MADE IN WMP.12355/2022 IN WP.3348/2022 BY DKKJ and PDBJ)

¶22

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action under Madras City Municipal Corporation Act 1919 on the strength of petitioner's petition dated 24.8.2021.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Krishnamurthy For Respondents : Mr.Thamaraiselvan for R1 Standing Counsel Mr.P.Prithvi Chopra for R2 and R3 Standing Counsel

¶24

Page No:2/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶27

Mr.Stalin Abimanyu for R5 and R6 Additional Government Pleader Mr.R.Gopinath for R7 Standing Counsel No appearance for R4

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action under Madras City Municipal Corporation Act 1919 on the strength of petitioner's petition dated 24.08.2021.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶32

that the 4th respondent is proceeding with illegal construction without proper plan and valid title in respect of land situated at Zamin Korattur Village, Poonamalle Taluk, Thiruvallur District bearing Survey No.65/3 and 72/6A to the extent of 107 cents.

¶33

It is the further contention of the petitioner counsel that the

¶34

said land is the ancestral property of the petitioner. Since the 4th respondent

¶35

Page No:3/7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶38

and deceased one Kadhar Sultan attempted to grab the land with the fabricated documents, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.346 of 2013 for partition and permanent injunction. The 4th respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.244 of 2014 for specific performance.

¶39

As against the illegal construction put up by the 4th respondent, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.08.2021 to the 1st and 2nd respondents, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present petition.

¶40

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing for R1/CMDA has filed a status report stating that based on the application for planning permission, planning approval has been given to the said building. However, it does not confirm any ownership or title over the property.

¶41

Considering the fact that the building has been constructed based on the planning permission, no further order is required to be passed in

¶42

Page No:4/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶45

this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are at liberty to agitate the title dispute before the Civil Forum and get their grievance redressed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

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

¶47

11.10.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No msv To 1.The Member Secretary CMDA Office, Thalamuthu Natarajan House, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008.

¶48

2.Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, EVR Periyar Salai, Chennai - 600 003.

¶49

Page No:5/7

¶50

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

¶51

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶52

Zonal Executive Engineer, ( Zone VII) Thiruvallur High Road, Opposite to Dunlop, Chennai -600 053

¶53

5 The Director,

¶54

The Directorate of Town and Country Planning 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor C9E Market Road

¶55

Koyambedu Chennai 600107.

¶56

6 Assistant Director

¶57

Town and Country Planning

¶58

Thiruvallur Office

¶59

43/397 A 2nd Floor

¶60

Annai Indira Gandhi Salai

¶61

Rajajipuram,

¶62

Phase II, Thiruvallurpuram,

¶63

Thiruvallur District.

¶64

7 The Commissioner Avadi City Municipal Corporation Avadi, Chennai 600054.

¶65

Page No:6/7

¶66

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

¶67

W.P. No. 3348 of 2022

¶68

J.NISHA BANU,J. And N.Mala,J.

¶69

msv

¶70

W.P.No. 3348 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.3939 of 2022

¶71

11.10.2023

¶72

Page No:7/7

¶73

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

Selvi. S.Kaveri v. The Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi. S.Kaveri v. The Member Secretary

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

P.L.Kannan Vs The Additional secretary (Technical)

J.Y.Venkatesh Vs State Rep by

M.Senthilkumar Vs C.K.Perumal

Krishna Kumar Vs the Executive Officer

Mrs.M.Reena Vs the Commissioner

S.Sarathkumar Vs The Member Secretary