Disposed

S.Jayapriya v. The Commissioner

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WP/13031/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that proceedings initiated under the repealed District Municipalities Act are saved under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. After show-casing the property owners, the Court directed the Municipality to conclude proceedings within 12 weeks and dismissed the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the re-submission of plans.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as closed. Proceedings directed to be concluded within 12 weeks by 04.03.2025. No order as to costs.

S.Jayapriya Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.12.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶9

¶10

W.M.P No.2182 of 2021

¶11

¶12

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶13

S.Jayapriya

¶14

W/o.S.R.Sivaperumal .. Petitioner

¶15

¶16

The Commissioner

¶17

Nagapattinam Municipality Nagapattinam

¶18

K.Premavathi (deceased) W/o.Kandhasamy

¶19

K.Subramaniyan S/o.Kandhasamy

¶20

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

¶21

Page 1 of 8

¶22

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶23

K.Kumarasamy

¶24

S/o.Kandhasamy ... Respondents [substituted as LRs of deceased R2 as per

¶25

order dated 26.09.2023 made in

¶26

W.M.P.No.23000/23]

¶27

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to remove the unauthorized and illegal construction made by the 2nd respondent comprised in Town S.No.497 in Ward No.2, Block No.9, Perumal South Street, Nagapattinam Municipality, Nagapattinam District on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner dated 23.05.2020.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sathish Kumar for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader for R1 Ms.P.Srividhya for R3 and R4

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

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

¶31

Captioned writ petition pertains to 'Town Survey No.497 in Ward

¶32

No.2, Block No.9, Perumal South Street, Nagapattinam Municipality,

¶33

Nagapattinam District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8

¶34

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶35

convenience]. To be noted, petitioner's complaint is that one

¶36

K.Premavathi (originally R2 in captioned writ petition) has put up

¶37

unauthorized and illegal construction. Pending writ petition, R2 died and

¶38

her legal heirs have been brought on record as R3 and R4 vide orders of

¶39

this Court dated 26.09.2023 in W.M.P.No.23000 of 2023. R3 and R4

¶40

are now represented by learned counsel Ms.P.Srividhya.

¶41

R1 (Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality) is the local

¶42

body and it is represented by Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government

¶43

Pleader.

¶44

Mr.P.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel representing the counsel

¶45

on record for writ petitioner submits that said property is an unauthorized

¶46

and illegal construction and in the previous listings, Hon'ble predecessor

¶47

Bench has requisitioned a report from R1. The report is before us, from

¶48

the report and from the submissions made in the Court, it comes to light

¶49

that R1 has initiated proceedings vide Section 216(3) of the 'Tamil Nadu

¶50

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

¶51

Page 3 of 8

¶52

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶53

District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920)'

¶54

[hereinafter 'District Municipalities Act' for the sake of convenience].

¶55

We carefully examined the obtaining position. The 'Tamil Nadu

¶56

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)' {hereinafter

¶57

'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity} kicked in on 13.04.2023. Section 200 of TNULB Act is captioned 'Repeal and Saving'. Vide Section 200(1)(b), District Municipalities Act has been repealed but Section

¶58

200(3)(e) is the saving clause and the same read as follows:

¶59

'200. Repeal and Saving.- (1) The following Acts are hereby repealed, namely:-

¶60

(a) ....

¶61

(b) The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act,

¶62

1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920)

¶63

(z) ....

¶64

(2) ..... (3) Notwithstanding such repeal.-

¶65

(a) .....

¶66

Page 4 of 8

¶67

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

¶68

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶69

(e) all things done, made, instituted, executed and

¶70

appointed by the municipal corporations, municipalities, town panchayats under the relevant Acts referred to in sub-section

¶71

(1) before the [commencement of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies (Amendment) Act, 2022] shall be deemed to have been done, made, instituted, executed or appointed, as the case may be, by the municipal corporations, municipalities and town panchayats deemed to have been constituted under the provisions of this Act.'

¶72

The above means that the proceedings initiated by R1 inter alia

¶73

under Section 216(3) of District Municipalities Act is saved and the same

¶74

shall now be deemed to be proceedings under TNULB Act.

¶75

Learned counsel for R3 and R4 submits that a plan was

¶76

submitted by her mother, same was returned and R3 and R4 would now

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8

¶78

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶79

be resubmitting the plan. We do not express any opinion on this aspect

¶80

of the matter as R3 and R4 have been show-caused. To be noted, R3 and

¶81

R4 have stepped into the shoes of R2. R3 and R4 are keenly interested in protecting the property. R3 and R4 would state that they would treat

¶82

themselves as noticees and would respond to the notice from R1.

¶83

Now that the persons who have put up alleged unauthorized and

¶84

illegal construction have been show-caused, let the law take its course in

¶85

accordance with TNULB Act and let the proceedings be continued and

¶86

concluded as expeditiously as possible as the business of R1 would

¶87

permit but in any event within a period of 12 weeks i.e., by 04.03.2025.

¶88

As regards re-submission of the plan, we make it clear that all the rights

¶89

and contentions of R3 and R4 are preserved as we are not expressing any

¶90

opinion on this aspect of the matter and this aspect would also be taken

¶91

into consideration by R1 in the proceedings under the TNULB Act. As

¶92

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

¶93

Page 6 of 8

¶94

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶95

law has commenced taking its course, it will suffice to record the stated

¶96

position of the parties and drop the curtains on the captioned writ petition.

¶97

Captioned writ petition disposed of as closed recording the stated

¶98

position of the parties and with aforementioned directive with timeline.

¶99

Consequently, captioned WMP thereat is disposed of as closed. There

¶100

shall be no order as to costs.

¶101

[M.S., J] [K.R.S., J]

¶102

10.12.2024

¶103

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order gpa

¶104

¶105

The Commissioner Nagapattinam Municipality Nagapattinam

¶106

Page 7 of 8

¶107

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

¶108

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶109

M.SUNDAR,J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶110

gpa

¶111

W.P.No.13031 of 2020

¶112

10.12.2024

¶113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8

S.Jayapriya v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jayapriya 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

N.Chitra Vs the District Collector

S.Ilaiyaraja Vs the District Collector

S.Muniyamuthu Vs the District Collector

M.Gokulakannan Vs The Chief Engineer

P.Krishnasamy Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

P.Vijaykumar Vs the District Collector