Allowed

Jeyakumar v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Madras HC12 Sept 2024WP(MD)/21811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 for encroachment removal was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Municipality to issue proper notice under Section 128(2), considering replies before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 is quashed. Respondents are directed to issue proper notice under Section 128(2) and act accordingly.

Jeyakumar Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.21811 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.21811 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18443 and 18444 of 2024

¶8

Jeyakumar ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The District Collector/Monitory Committee, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶12

3.The Corporation Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.38677/2021/d1, dated 28.08.2024 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.M.Rajarajan

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.21811 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice

¶20

for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned counsel takes notice for the 3^rd respondent. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶21

2.The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the notice issued by the Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation, purportedly under Section 128(1)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

¶22

3.Section 128(1) deals with removal of movable encroachments. Section 128(2) deals with removal of immovable encroachments by immovable construction or other immovable measures. Section 128(2) requires the Commissioner to issue a show cause notice giving seven days time to the noticee to show cause why the encroachment should not be removed. Proviso to Section 128(2) mandates that any reply received within the time stipulated should be considered and final orders shall be passed. No doubt, the impugned order refers to three different notices issued between 29.03.2022 to 25.02.2022. But action is taken almost two years thereafter.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.21811 of 2024

¶25

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that those notices were served on the father of the petitioner, who is no more. The father of the petitioner has filed the suit and the same is pending.

¶26

5.If the Municipality finds there is an encroachment, which is open to the Municipality to follow the procedure prescribed under law and remove the encroachments, therefore, the impugned notice is quashed. It will be open to the Municipal Corporation to issue proper notice under Section 128(2) and if any objection is received, consider the same and pass orders for encroachments.

¶27

6.The Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. No Costs.

¶28

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 12.09.2024

¶30

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.21811 of 2024

¶33

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

¶34

Mrn

¶35

¶36

1.The District Collector/Monitory Committee, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶37

2.The Tahsildar, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶38

3.The Corporation Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municipal Corporation, Thanjavur District.

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.21811 of 2024

¶40

12.09.2024

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

Jeyakumar v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyakumar v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

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

E.Athisayakumar , Vs State of Tamil Nadu

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K. Balamurugan

Ganesan .O Vs The District Collector

Rosario Jayaseelan Vs Corporation of Madurai

P. Sivanraj Vs The District Collector

Senthilmurugan Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited