Dismissed

K.Shafeeq Ahamed v. The Chairman

Madras HC6 Mar 2023WP/6903/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged a demolition notice issued by SIPCOT. The court dismissed the plea holding the petitioner lacked locus standi as the notice pertained to different property than the one under his title. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Demolition proceedings related to a property different from the one under petitioner's title are not challengeable by him. Writ petition dismissed.

K.Shafeeq Ahamed Vs The Chairman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

W.P.No.6903 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.7000 of 2023

¶7

K.Shafeeq Ahamed ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Chairman, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd.,(SIPCOT), No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 2.The Estate Officer, SIPCOT Project Office, SIPCOT IT Park, Siruseri, Chengalpattu - 603 103.

¶10

3.The Project Officer, Siruseri SIPCOT IT Park, Siruseri, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 603 103.

¶11

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, SITP, Siruseri, Chennai - 603 103.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶15

5.The Tahsildar, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District.

¶16

6.The Revenue Inspector, Kelambakkam, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶17

7.The Village Administrative Officer, Egattur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire record pertaining to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide in Ref.No.PO/SITP/Siruseri/Shafeeq Ahamed/2023 dated 16.02.2023, quash the same and consequentially directing the respondents not to demolishing the petitioner property situated at Ekattur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in Old Survey No.92/1A2, New Survey No.149/8 measuring an extent of 1776 square feet.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan

¶20

For Respondents : Mrs.Sudharshana Sundar for R1 to R3

¶21

Mr.R.Kumaravel

¶22

Additional Government Pleader for R4 to R7

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner claims title to the property by virtue of sale deed dated 16.11.2011 and after the sale, Old Survey No.92/1A2 and New Survey No.149/8 measuring 777 Sq.ft. After the purchase by the petitioner, he was given Patta No.95. Patta No.95 was issued in respect of Survey No.149/8 measuring Hect.00117.

¶28

By the impugned proceedings, the respondent SIPCOT issued a demolition notice dated 16.02.2023. It is with regard to S.F.No.92/1B2 and hence, I find that the demolition notice is in respect of Survey No.92/1B2 to an extent of 674 Sq.ft. The land is different from the land owned by the petitioner and hence for clarification the matter was passed over and again taken in the afternoon.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the headline mentioned in the impugned notice that the unauthorized occupation by petitioner is adjacent to his patta land. The petitioner's patta land is 149/8 whereas the proceedings initiated is in respect of Survey No.92/1B2 and

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶33

hence, I find the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge, since, he is not the owner of the property.

¶34

In view of the above observation, the Writ Petition stands

¶35

dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

06.03.2023

¶37

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No ab

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶41

¶42

1.The Chairman, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd.,(SIPCOT), No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶43

2.The Estate Officer, SIPCOT Project Office, SIPCOT IT Park, Siruseri, Chengalpattu - 603 103.

¶44

3.The Project Officer, Siruseri SIPCOT IT Park, Siruseri, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 603 103.

¶45

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, SITP, Siruseri, Chennai - 603 103.

¶46

5.The Tahsildar, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District.

¶47

6.The Revenue Inspector, Kelambakkam, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶48

7.The Village Administrative Officer, Egattur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶52

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN. J.,

¶53

¶54

W.P.No.6903 of 2023

¶55

06.03.2023

¶56

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

¶57

6/6

K.Shafeeq Ahamed v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shafeeq Ahamed v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Senthilkumar Vs The Managing Director

M.Thiagarajan Vs Mohan Doss

R.Rajinikanth Vs Pradeep Raj

S.Gurunathan Vs Proprietor

G. Gandhi Vs United India Ins., Co., Ltd., Chennai

Chennai Koyambedu Market Vs Chennai Metropolitan