Disposed

Ramarajan, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC4 Dec 2024WP/7139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an order rejecting a building plan approval application for failing to afford prior notice. The court directs the authority to issue a show cause notice, grant an opportunity of being heard, and pass a final order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Conversion of the impugned order into a show cause notice; direction to afford opportunity of personal hearing; direction to pass final order within three months.

Ramarajan, Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7139 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.7139 of 2024 and WMP No.7995 of 2024

1.Ramarajan

2.Tmt.Selvamani

…. Petitioners

-Vs-

1.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai 600 003.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer-Zone III Greater Chennai Corporation No.1, Thattankulam Road, Zone III Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

¶13

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer-Unit VIII Greater Chennai Corporation No.1, Thattankulam Road, Zone III Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

¶14

4.District Revenue Officer Land and Estate Department Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai 600 003. .. Respondents

¶15

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

¶16

1 / 6

¶17

W.P.No.7139 of 2024

¶18

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letter vide No.Z.O.III.C.No.3464/2022 dated 09.02.2023 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioners for building plan approval dated 28.03.2022.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sudhakaran

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus

¶23

calling for records relating to an impugned letter dated 09.02.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer-Unit VIII, Greater Chennai Corporation, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060 and to quash the same and to reconsider the application of the petitioners for building plan approval dated 28.03.2022.

¶24

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that

¶25

the property bearing Plot No.54A and 53A Part in T.S.No.5/2, Block No.21, DTC

¶26

2 / 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.7139 of 2024

¶29

Approval No.LPDM/DDTP No.28/68 measuring an extent of 4422 Sq.ft., in Rajaji Street, Madhavaram High Road had been purchased by the petitioners by sale deed dated 26.02.2008 registered as Document No.1441/2008 in the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium. Patta had also been granted in the name of the petitioners. It had been contended that the petitioners had appointed one Anthony Stephen as their Power of Attorney. He had applied for planing permission for construction of a building on 06.09.2021. That application was returned and resubmitted on 29.11.2021. It was again returned. A further application was submitted on 28.03.2022. The writ petition was been filed since the said application has also been returned and the application fee had been directed to be refunded to the petitioners herein.

¶30

3.A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein,

¶31

the reasons for rejection had been stated in detail. But however let me not enter into a detailed discussion on the same since it is contended on behalf of the respondents that before passing the impugned order a show cause notice had also been issued against the petitioners. However, there is no record that the petitioners had actually received the same. Further, even in the impugned order, there is no reference to the said show cause notice. It is thus evident that without

¶32

3 / 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No.7139 of 2024

¶35

issuing prior notice, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶36

4.In view of the said fact, the impugned order is directed to be converted as a show cause notice and as a notice that the planning permission submitted by the petitioners would be rejected and that the petitioners may put forward the reasons as to why the same should be accepted by the respondents. The petitioners may also take advantage of the attempts made in the counter affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, wherein they had stated that the property is not a public purpose land and therefore guidelines are not required.

¶37

5.The petitioners may respond to the impugned letter by giving a reply within a period of four weeks from this date and thereafter, the respondents can process the reply and the application of the petitioners and also giving an opportunity of being personally heard by the Power Agent of the petitioners and thereafter pass appropriate orders. The orders should be passed within a period of three months from the date on which necessary enquiry is commenced by the respondents.

¶38

4 / 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.7139 of 2024

¶41

6.The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶42

miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

04.12.2024

¶44

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶45

¶46

1.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai 600 003.

¶47

2.The Executive Engineer-Zone III Greater Chennai Corporation No.1, Thattankulam Road, Zone III Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

¶48

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer-Unit VIII Greater Chennai Corporation No.1, Thattankulam Road, Zone III Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

¶49

4.District Revenue Officer Land and Estate Department Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai 600 003.

¶50

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.,J

¶51

5 / 6

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.7139 of 2024

¶54

¶55

Writ Petition No.7139 of 2024

¶56

04.12.2024

¶57

6 / 6

¶58

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

Ramarajan, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramarajan, 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

M/S.Arul Murugan Agencies Vs the District Collector

S.R.P.Colony Nalasangam Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Prakash Arts Pvt. Ltd., Vs Managing Director

Vandana C.Shah Vs the Commissioner

A.Murugan Vs State Represented by its

Vimalarani Vs The Deputy Registrar co-operative Societies