Disposed

Jebakani.S v. The Commissioner

Madras HC18 Dec 2023WP(MD)/30039/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act for encroachment removal, claiming title via registered sale deed. Court held authorities empowered to identify and remove encroachments on public places within 8 weeks; civil court can decide title disputes separately. Writ petition disposed with directions to complete exercise.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued under Section 128 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 to be acted upon; encroachments to be removed within 8 weeks.

Jebakani.S Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.30039 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.30039 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25924 of 2023

S.Jebakani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner,

Nagercoil Corporation, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned notice No.2/2023-2024 (North Region) dated 27.11.2023 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saravanan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶17

The notice dated 27.11.2023 issued under Section 128(1)(b) and 128(2)

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.30039 of 2023

¶21

of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶22

2.The petitioner states that she has purchased the subject property more fully described in the Writ Petition through registered sale deed dated 18.03.2004 vide document No.538/2004. The subject property situates in an approved layout and the approval was granted by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. She has constructed the compound wall and planted trees and she is in continuous possession of the subject property for about 19 years. The predecessors in title were in possession for more than 7 decades. Therefore, the notice issued by the respondent is infirm.

¶23

3.The authorities conducted survey and found that the petitioner has encroached upon the public pathway and planted some trees therein and thereby, caused obstructions to the public and therefore, the authorities have initiated action to remove the encroachments. If at all the petitioner claims any title over the subject property, she has to approach the competent civil Court of law for establishing her civil right independently based on the documents and evidences available on record. The authorities are empowered to conduct a survey, identify

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.30039 of 2023

¶27

the encroachments and remove the same in the interest of the public by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act.

¶28

4.In the present case, survey has already been conducted and notice was issued and the petitioner has also submitted her objections to the notice. The said objections may be considered by the authorities and still the authorities are of the opinion that the lands are public place encroached upon by the petitioner, there is no impediment to remove such encroachments without any further delay. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

5.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

(S.M.S., J.) & (L.V.G., J.) 18.12.2023

¶31

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶32

Yuva

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.30039 of 2023

¶36

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶37

AND

¶38

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶39

Yuva

¶40

¶41

1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶42

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, State Highways Department, (B & M), Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶43

3.The Tahsildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.30039 of 2023

¶45

18.12.2023

¶46

4/4

¶47

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

Jebakani.S v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jebakani.S 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

Arunachalam Vs Kovilpillai Pandian

Thirunavukarasu Vs C. Arumugam

S. Senthil Kumar Vs Mrs.Diravida Mani Nallathambi

Sheela.P Vs The Authorized Officer

D.Indira. Vs The Authorized Officer

Sudha .S Vs The Authorized Officer