Disposed

S.Muthukrishnan, v. Block Development Officer

Madras HC7 Jul 2023WP/800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking building plan approval. The Court held that disputed civil facts cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Court for interim orders to protect rights during the pendency of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach Civil Court; no costs.

S.Muthukrishnan, Vs Block Development… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.800 of 2018

S.Muthukrishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Block Development Officer, Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Dhali Road, Udumalpet,

¶11

Tirupur District.

¶12

2.Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer (Zone-2) Udumalpettai Block/Circle, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

¶13

3.Panchayat Secretary, Bodipatti Panchayat, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District.

¶14

4.V.Brindha

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records relating to the impugned order of the 1 st respondent dated 27.11.2017 made in N.Ka.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶20

No.3068/17/B1 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to grant building plan approval in survey No.95, Bodipatti Village, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District to the petitioner.

¶21

F or Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The letter dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Block Development Officer,

¶24

stating that the Building Plan permission as such sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, in view of the pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.38 of 2010.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no impediment for proceeding with the construction even during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26650 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022, which reads as under:

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶29

“ 3. ............. We do not propose to enter upon the merits of the civil suit that is pending. Pendency of a civil suit by itself cannot be a bar for the authority to exercise their powers under specific provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act. Unless there is a prohibitory order by the civil court, the authority cannot refrain from exercising the powers vested in it under the provisions of an enactment.

¶30

4. As regards the contentions that the Commissioner alone can grant permission and not others, Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the Chennai Corporation would submit that Section 16 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act empowers the Commissioner to delegate the powers to another Officer and such delegation has been done by virtue of letter in W.D.C.No.2106/2019 dated 05.08.2021. A copy of the letter has also been produced.

¶31

5. We find that the power to sanction demolition has been delegated to the Zonal Executive Engineer. We therefore, do not see any

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶35

merit in the writ petition. This Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to seek appropriate interim orders as he may be advised.”

¶36

It is not in dispute between the parties that the Civil Suit in

¶37

O.S.No.38 of 2010 is pending before the Court at Tirupur. If at all the petitioner has decided to put up any construction or to improve the property or otherwise, he has to approach the Civil Court for consideration.

¶38

The rights of the parties are to be protected during the pendency of the Civil Suit, whether granting permission would cause prejudice or not; whether the petitioner gives an undertaken that he will not claim any damages in future in the event of transferring the right in favour of the other parties, and all such mitigating factors are to be taken into consideration, since the Civil Suit is pending.

¶39

In the event of passing any order in a writ proceeding by the High

¶40

Court, the same would cause prejudice to either of the parties. More so, the

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶44

disputed facts of civil nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his

¶45

grievances in the manner known to law.

¶46

With this liberty, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶47

07.07.2023

¶48

Jeni Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order

¶49

¶50

1.The Block Development Officer, Udumalpet Panchayat Union, Dhali Road, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

¶51

2.The Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer (Zone-2) Udumalpettai Block/Circle, Udumalpet, Tirupur District.

¶52

3.The Panchayat Secretary, Bodipatti Panchayat, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶56

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶57

Jeni

¶58

W.P.No.800 of 2018

¶59

07.07.2023

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

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

S.Muthukrishnan, v. Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muthukrishnan, v. Block Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Prakasam alias R.Jayaprakash Vs The Joint sub Registrar

R.Perumalswamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Valluvar Gurukulam Vs State of TamilNadu

A.Baskaran Vs The District Collector

S.Mangavaram Vs The District Collector

A. Kumarasamy (Deceased) Vs Dr. Atulya Misra, IAS