Disposed

Rosario Jayaseelan v. Corporation of Madurai

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP(MD)/20122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought removal of unauthorized construction in Madurai. Corporation stated the new owner lacked an approved plan and was given time to produce it, failing which action would be taken under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Court disposed of petition with liberty to petitioner to seek reopening if no action follows.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rosario Jayaseelan Vs Corporation of Madurai — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶7

Rosario Jayaseelan, S/o.Gnanaprakasam ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.Corporation of Madurai, Represented by its Commissioner, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Town Planning Officer, Zone-3, Ward No.52, West Marret Street, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai Corporation Building, Madurai.

¶12

4.Gnaneswaran

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action to

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶18

remove the unauthorized construction at Door No.48, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai Town, Madurai, in the interest of the general public and to avoid any untoward incident.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef

¶20

For R1 and R2 : Mr.Vidya Sagar Standing Counsel

¶21

For R3 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶24

Prayer in the Writ Petition reads as follows:-

¶25

''To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action to remove the unauthorized construction at Door No.48, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai Town, Madurai, in the interest of the general public and to avoid any untoward incident.''

¶26

2 . Mr.Vidya Sagar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶27

Madurai Corporation would submit that the present owner of the property in question namely, Door No.48, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai Town, Madurai, has purchased the property only three months ago along with the super

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶31

structure. He would also add that the present owner does not have the approved plan. Therefore, sometime has been granted to him to produce the approved plan. If he fails to produce the approved plan, suitable action will be taken under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶32

3 . Recording the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of

¶33

with liberty to the petitioner to seek reopening of the Writ Petition, if no action is taken. No costs.

¶34

NCC : No [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] Index : No 12.09.2024 smn2

¶35

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶38

To:-

¶39

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶40

2.The Town Planning Officer, Zone-3, Ward No.52, West Marret Street, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶41

3.The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai Corporation Building, Madurai.

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶45

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶46

smn2

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.20122 of 2024

¶48

12.09.2024

¶49

_____________ Page 5 of 5_

¶50

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

Rosario Jayaseelan v. Corporation of Madurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rosario Jayaseelan v. Corporation of Madurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Athisayakumar , Vs State of Tamil Nadu

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K. Balamurugan

Ganesan .O Vs The District Collector

P. Sivanraj Vs The District Collector

Senthilmurugan Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

T.AnbuMurugan Vs Kamarunnisa Begum.K