Disposed

S.Anandan v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC4 Jul 2024WP/9291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Tambaram Corporation to consider his representation about alleged trespass and fencing work on land claimed under a lapsed lease held by his late father. Without examining merits, the court directed the first respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent 1 to consider representation dated 30.01.2024 and pass orders on merits within eight weeks; no costs; miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Anandan Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.9291 of 2024 and WMP.No.10314 of 2024

¶7

S. Anandan ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner, Tambaram Corporation, Tambaram 600 045 Chengalpattu District.

¶10

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

¶11

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2024 and pass orders.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Sathish Kumar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivasan Standing Counsel for R1

¶14

Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R2

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 6

¶16

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2024 and pass orders.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶20

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.04.1973 the Lease Agreement entered into between the Corporation of Chennai and the petitioner's father viz., K.E.Sambandam for early rent of Rs.1,500/- and the lease expires on 02.08.1982 in respect of the land comprised in Re-Survey No.66, Old Survey No.956, Pammal Village of an extent of 6.44 acres. The petitioner's father had constructed a house in the said property and he had obtained electricity service connection and the assessment of property tax in his favour by the Competent Authorities. During the year 1997, the 2 nd respondent has disturbed the peaceful possession and hence the petitioner's father has filed a suit in O.S.No.2085 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Alandur and got an order of interim injunction. Thereafter, Court notice was sent to the 2 nd

¶21

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

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶24

respondent and he did not appear and hence the above Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner's father and granted permanent injunction restraining the 2 nd respondent from disturbing his father's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of 1 Acre 27 cents out of 6 acres 44 cents, comprised in Re-Survey No.66, Old Survey No.956, Pammal Village by its judgment and decree dated 09.02.2004. On 25.06.2012 the petitioner's father died leaving behind his legal heirs which is evidenced from the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Alandur Taluk. The respondents did not disturb the petitioner's father peaceful possession till 2023. When the petitioner was out of station on 30.01.2024 the 1 st respondent has trespassed into the possession and tried to fench in the said property and also they have performed Boomi Poojai to construct some building in the said property though the 1 st respondent was not the owner of the said land. Hence immediately, the petitioner made a representation to the 1 st respondent to stop the fench work and not to enter into their peaceful possession. So far, the 1 st respondent has stopped the fench work and did not disturb their possession thereafter. But the 1 st respondent has not passed any orders on his representation. As there was no response for his representation dated 30.01.2024 the 1 st respondent is doing the construction work till date. Since the first respondent did not pass any order on the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2024, the petitioner has approached this

¶25

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

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶28

Court.

¶29

4. Though very many grounds have been raised in this Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits, within a particular time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that the land belongs to Greater Chennai Corporation as per the Revenue Records and it was only a lease period for 10 years from 1972 to 1982 and the period expired. Now it is unauthorised and there is no such construction as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the said land is vacant land. He further submitted that Tambaram Corporation had decided to construct a Government building for which permission was granted

¶31

by the first respondent to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to construct the building as per the CMDA proposal.

¶32

6. This Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the 1 st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.01.2024

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶36

and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law wtihin a period of eight

¶37

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

7. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently

¶39

connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶40

04.07.2024

¶41

Neutral Citation: Yes/No dpq

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 6

¶43

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶44

V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶45

dpq

¶46

¶47

The Assistant Commissioner, Tambaram Corporation, Tambaram 600 045 Chengalpattu District.

¶48

The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Building Chennai 600 003.

¶49

W.P.No.9291 of 2024

¶50

04.07.2024

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 6

S.Anandan v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anandan v. the Assistant 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.Saradha Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Periyammal Vs the District Revenue Officer

D.C.Singaram Vs the Commissioner of Hindu Religious

A.Kalaiyarasan, Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society

D.Sathish Vs the Commissioner

M/s.Ariya Hi-Tech Pipe and Component Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Industries Promotion