Disposed

Kanchana Devi v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC17 Aug 2023WP/6898/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed respondents 3 and 4 (Chennai Corporation officials) to demolish deviated portions of an unauthorized building within eight weeks, allowing reasonable time for enforcement following Supreme Court orders and prior writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 3 and 4 to complete enforcement action of demolition regarding deviated portions within eight weeks from receipt of copy of order.

Kanchana Devi Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.No. 6898 of 2019

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos. 7640 & 7709 of 2019

¶8

Kanchana Devi

¶9

Chandra Devi

¶10

Suman Jain ... Petitioners

¶11

¶12

Government of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶13

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep by its Member Secretary No 1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai-8

¶14

Greater Chennai Corporation Rep by its Commissioner Rippon Buildings Chennai-3

¶15

Executive Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone V, No 3, Vadivel 2nd cross street Perambur, Chennai-600 011

¶16

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

¶17

Page No. 1 of 8

¶18

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶19

Pooja Rani

¶20

Rekha devi

¶21

Mamta ... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to initiate action of demolition to remove the deviated portions in the existing stilt + 2 floors, in Old Door No.14, New Door No.16, Vathiyar Kandapillai Street, Choolai, Chennai – 112, in pursuance to the De-Occupation notice issued by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents in notice ZOVC No.11668/14 dated 14.10.2016 and in consideration of the 1^st petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2017 to the respondents 1 to 3.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr. D.S.Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 Mr.C.N.Vinoba Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for RR3 & 4

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

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

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to demolish the deviated portions in the existing

¶28

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

¶29

Page No. 2 of 8

¶30

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶31

stilt + 2 floors, in pursuance to the De-Occupation notice issued by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents in notice ZOVC No.11668/14 dated 14.10.2016 and in

¶32

consideration of the 1^st petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2017.

¶33

It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners herein are the joint owners/co-owners of the subject property. The 1^st petitioner was entrusted to develop and construct a multi-storied building. The 1^st petitioner obtained sanction for construction of stilt + 2 floors. However, constructed additional floors, viz., 3^rd and 4^th floors and sold the same to the petitioners 2 and 3.

¶34

Earlier one T.Solomon filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.23936 of 2010 praying to direct the respondents to remove the unauthorised construction. This court directed the respondents-Chennai Corporation to demolish the unauthorised construction.

¶35

Aggrieved by the above said direction, the 1^st petitioner-Kanchana

¶36

Devi, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5586 of 2014 (Special Leave Petition No.37800/2013, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 3 of 8_

¶38

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶39

Court, vide order dated 09.05.2014, directed the 1^st petitioner to demolish the deviated portions of the premises within a period of three months from the date of de-sealing, in default, the 1^st petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent Corporation by way of costs and it would be open to the respondents 3 and 4 to demolish the unauthorized portions of the premises in question.

¶40

Subsequently, the 1^st petitioner had remitted Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent Corporation, however, only 3^rd and 4^th floors were demolished and the respondent Corporation did not take steps to demolish the deviated portions in the 1^st and 2^nd floors.

¶41

T.Solomon filed Contempt Petition in Conmt.Pet.(C).No.596 of

¶42

2016 as against the petitioners herein and the Corporation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 30.01.2017, directed the respondent Corporation to demolish the entire unauthorized construction in the premises in question, before the next date of hearing, viz., before 03.03.2017.

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 4 of 8_

¶44

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Contempt Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reached

¶46

its finality on 22.07.2019, wherein it has been held as follows:-

¶47

“We have perused the replies filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The demolition of the third and fourth floors of the building has been carried out partially i.e. by demolition of the roofs. The side walls have been retained and in the meantime, there are restraint orders passed by the authorities, as well as, an injunction order passed by a competent Court. If that be the position, while the injunction order of the civil Court is in force, no further demolition can be carried out. Therefore, there is no wilful disobedience of any order of this Court.

¶48

While it will be open for the aggrieved party to move the competent authority/civil Court for vacation of the restraint order/injunction order, we are not inclined to pass any further orders in the present contempt petition, which will stand closed in the above terms.

¶49

The respondent no. 2 Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai will be at liberty to recover the cost of the demolition carried out till date from the respondent no.

¶50

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

¶51

Page No. 5 of 8

¶52

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶53

1 - Kanchana Devi, which amount has been quantified at Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only)”

¶54

The learned Standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would further submit that based on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the quantified amount of Rs.3,25,000/- has been paid to the respondents 3 and 4, by way of Demand Draft.

¶55

Taking note of the above facts of the case and that the respondents 3 and 4 requires reasonable time for completing the enforcement action, this Court directs the respondents 3 and 4 to complete the enforcement action of demolition in respect of the deviated portions, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

10.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶57

(J.N.B., J.) (N.M., J.) 17.08.2023

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 6 of 8_

¶59

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶60

sts/nvsri

¶61

To :

¶62

The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶63

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No 1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8

¶64

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings Chennai-3

¶65

The Executive Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone V, No 3, Vadivel 2nd cross street Perambur, Chennai-600 011

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 7 of 8_

¶67

W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶68

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

¶69

sts

¶70

Order made in W.P.No.6898 of 2019

¶71

Dated: 17.08.2023

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No. 8 of 8_

Kanchana Devi v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchana Devi 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

C.Devendra Prasad Vs The Chief Engineer

M.Selvaraj Vs The Registrar

R.Bhuvaneswari Vs The Principal Secretary

T.Senthilkumar Vs The District Collector

R.Jagadeesan Vs The Chairman

M/s. The South Indian National Association Vs State of Tamil Nadu