Allowed

Amjath Khan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC12 Mar 2024WP/27461/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for mandamus to de-seal a residential flat locked by the Panchayat after sealing without notice. Court directed petitioner to file statutory revision under Section 80-A and directed de-sealing with a stay on coercive action pending the revision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file statutory revision under Section 80-A TC Act within two weeks; premises to be de-sealed pending the disposal of the revision; no coercive action to be initiated.

Amjath Khan Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶7

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶8

Amjath Khan S/o late Abdul Hameed represented by his Power of Attorney Syed Sahib

¶9

.. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Commissioner St.Thomas Panchayat Union No.1 Chitlapakkam First Main Road Chitlapakkam, Chennai 600 064

¶12

The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 (R2 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 12.03.2024 in WP.27461/23) .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 05.08.2023 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner :: Mr.Y.Prakash For Respondents :: Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

Having regard to the nature of order that is proposed to be passed in

¶21

this writ petition, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 is suo motu impleaded as the second respondent in this writ petition.

¶22

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2023 in accordance with law.

¶23

The petitioner purchased a residential flat bearing No.G1, 'Balambigai Flats', Door No.19, Anna Street, Nanmangalam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai 600 129. It is the case of petitioner that he took possession of the property and was residing with his family. It is also

¶24

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶27

the case of petitioner that after residing in the property for sometime, the petitioner had shifted to USA due to his employment. When the petitioner returned to India, he found that the flat purchased by the petitioner was kept under lock and seal by the first respondent. It is in the said context, the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.08.2023 complaining that the petitioner was never heard and the first respondent had admitted that without issuing notice to the petitioner, who was in abroad, the order under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act dated 22.01.2019 was passed. The petitioner requested to de-seal the premises and initiate action only after issuing a formal notice to the petitioner and after conducting a fair enquiry.

¶28

Even though the writ petition was disposed of originally by order dated 12.10.2023, the order was recalled later on the representation of the first respondent stating that the building constructed by the petitioner is not authorized and that therefore the direction to demolish the building cannot be challenged in the writ petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the other owners of flats have filed appeal challenging the order

¶29

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶32

and appeal is pending. Since the other owners of flats are enjoying the interim order, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶33

may also be permitted to file an appeal as against the order and the respondents may be directed to de-seal the premises till such time the appeal is disposed of on merits.

¶34

Considering the request of the learned counsel for petitioner and the

¶35

fact that the first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit so far, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶36

(i) The petitioner is directed to file the statutory revision in terms of Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

(ii)The first respondent is directed to de-seal the premises so as to enable the petitioner to use the building, till such time the statutory revision filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner known to law.

¶38

(iii)Till such time the statutory revision is disposed of by the second

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶42

respondent, the first respondent shall not initiate any coercive action as against the petitioner.

¶43

No order as to costs.

¶44

Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 12.03.2024 ss

¶45

¶46

The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

¶47

The Commissioner St.Thomas Panchayat Union No.1 Chitlapakkam First Main Road Chitlapakkam Chennai 600 064

¶48

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

¶51

S.S.SUNDAR,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.27461 of 2023

12.03.2024

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶56

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

Amjath Khan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amjath Khan 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

D.Sasikala Vs the Principal Secretary

V.Ramesh Vs Sri Ganesh Flats Owners Association

D.Jayakumar Vs the Chairman

P.Kishore Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Amuthavalli Vs the Commissioner

K.T.R.C. Ramalingam Vs the Jurisdictional Commissioner