Disposed

B.Jeyanthi v. the Governemnt of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP/11584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the government order granting time for regularization of unauthorized construction. Court directed municipal officials to remove unauthorized construction within twelve weeks following due procedures.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to respondents 2 to 7 to take necessary action for removal of unauthorized construction by following Government Orders, Rules, etc., within a period of twelve weeks from the date of re

B.Jeyanthi Vs the Governemnt of Tamil Nadu — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.11584 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No.11584 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.12679 & 12680 of 2024

Mrs.B.Jeyanthi

... Petitioner

-vs-

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶13

The Regional Deputy Commissioner, North Zone, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.62, Basin Power House Road, Basin Bridge, Chennai-600 001.

¶14

The Zonal Officer, Zone III, Division 25, Greater Chennai Corporation, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.

¶15

The Executive Engineer,

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.11584 of 2024

¶19

Zone III, Division 25, Greater Chennai Corporation, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.

¶20

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone III, Division 25, Greater Chennai Corporation, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.

¶21

The Assistant Engineer, Zone III, Division 25, Greater Chennai Corporation, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.

¶22

Mr.Vinod @ Loganathan

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent dated 22.03.2024 comprised in Letter No.4621428/UD VI(1)/2023-6 pertaining to the property situated at No.97, Rajaji Street, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 7 herein to enforce the lock and sealing notice dated 18.03.2023 and the deoccupation dated 26.04.2023 issued to the 8^th respondent by demolishing the unauthorized construction made by the 8^th respondent in the aforesaid property.

¶25

For Petitioner	:	Mrs.B.Jeyanthi Party-in-person
For R1	:	Mr.T.K.Saravanan Govt. Advocate
For R2 to R7	:	Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel

¶26

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(By the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.11584 of 2024

¶32

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to quash the Letter dated 22.03.2024

¶33

passed by the 1^st respondent made in Letter No.4621428/UD VI(1)/2023-6 pertaining to the property situated at No.97, Rajaji Street, Madhavaram, Chennai. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents 2 to 7 herein to enforce the lock and seal notice dated 18.03.2023 and the de-occupation dated 26.04.2023 issued to the 8^th respondent by demolishing the unauthorized construction made by the 8^th respondent in the aforesaid property.

¶34

The party-in-person submitted that she had made a complaint in respect of an unauthorized construction put up by the 8^th respondent to the Corporation Officials, on the basis of which, Corporation, after issuing Stop Work Notice, issued lock and seal notice to the 8^th respondent. Against the said notice, the 8^th respondent preferred an appeal under Section 80-A and 80-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, in which the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2024, granting three months' time to R8 to obtain patta for the land and to carry out necessary rectification in the building to satisfy Rules and to obtain necessary approval for the rectified building as per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. It was further stated in the Letter that till such time, there shall be a stay on the enforcement action against the subject building.

¶35

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that

¶36

the 8^th respondent was afforded opportunity to rectify the defects as pointed out by the

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.11584 of 2024

¶40

Corporation and obtain patta within three months.

¶41

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Chennai Corporation stated before

¶42

this Court that the 8^th respondent has not complied with the direction and the Officials will take necessary action for removal of the unauthorized construction by following due procedures, if there are no legal impediments to do so.

¶43

In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 2 to 7 to take necessary action for removal of the unauthorized construction put up by the 8^th respondent by following Government Orders, Rules, etc., within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶44

Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ar

¶45

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, AND P.B.BALAJI,J.,

¶46

4/5

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.11584 of 2024

¶49

¶50

To:

¶51

The Additional Secretary (Technical), Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶52

W.P.No.11584 of 2024

¶53

22.08.2024

¶54

5/5

¶55

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

B.Jeyanthi v. the Governemnt of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jeyanthi v. the Governemnt of Tamil Nadu

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

The Managing Director Vs Anbu Selvam

M.Annadurai Vs the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

S.Periyasamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Manjula Vs the Commissioner

N.Jayam Vs the District Collector

Santhiran Vs the Commissioner