Dismissed¶59

H. Mageshwaran v. the Commissioner

Madras HC18 Jun 2025WP/21476/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demolition permission refused - dilapidated building, Karani Thottam, Saidapet - HR & CE Act Section 78 proceedings against original lessee mother and legal heirs - petitioner categorised as encroacher - TSLR extract blocked on HR & CE instruction - civil suit for declaration of title pending - certiorarified mandamus dismissed, no costs - Karaneeshwarar Temple Executive Officer directed to seek demolition - Chennai Corporation officials as respondents - follows earlier W.P.No.18610 of 2024 order dated 29.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition stands dismissed with no costs, liberty being effectively left to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ¶59

H. Mageshwaran Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 25.04.2025 (Na.Ka.No.1128921/2024/R2) rejecting permission to demolish the dilapidated building are liable to be quashed, and whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to inspect the property and pass suitable orders for demolition of the superstructure. +1 more

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the pending civil suit for declaration of title, the fact that the petitioner's mother was originally the lessee, and the proceedings under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act against her and other legal heirs, the 1st respondent concluded that no permission could be granted to the petitioner, since he is already categorised as an encroacher.

¶50-51

Key takeaways

The order passed by the 1st respondent does not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Court; the petitioner is left open to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law.ratio¶53-55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), WP No. 21476 of 2025, decided 18-06-2025: Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 - HR & CE Act, S. 78. The petitioner, owner of a dilapidated building at Saidapet, Chennai, sought permission to demolish and reconstruct it; the taluk authority blocked his TSLR extract on HR & CE instruction, and his earlier writ (W.P.No.18610 of 2024, disposed of on 29.07.2024) produced only a direction to act on his representation. By impugned proceedings Na.Ka.No.1128921/2024/R2 dated 25.04.2025, the 1st respondent rejected the permission, noting the pendency of the petitioner's civil suit for declaration of title, that his mother was the original lessee against whom and other legal heirs proceedings stood initiated under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act, and that the petitioner stood categorised as an encroacher; the temple Executive Officer was directed to approach the concerned authority for demolition. Held, the order does not suffer from illegality warranting interference; the petitioner may work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

1/9

¶2

WP No. 21476 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 18-06-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶7

WP No. 21476 of 2025 and WMP No. 24262 of 2025

H. Mageshwaran

Petitioner(s)

The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶12

2.The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments, R.K. Madam Salai, Chennai-600 034.

¶13

3.The Executive Officer Karaneeshwarar Temple, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶14

4.The Commissioner Corporation Of Chennai, Ripon Building, No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶15

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

¶16

2/9

¶17

WP No. 21476 of 2025

¶18

5.The Superintending Engineer Corporation Of Chennai, Ripon Building, No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

¶19

6.The Executive Engineer Zone X, Area 30, Unit Office, Ward 140, No.117, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶20

7.The Assistant Executive Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone X, Area 30, Ward 140, No.2/12, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶21

Respondent(s)

¶22

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

¶23

issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.1128921/2024/R2/dated 25.04.2025 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to inspect the property and pass suitable order for demolition of the superstructure existing in the house property bearing

¶24

Old Door No.1, New Door No.37, T.S. No.98, Block No.4, 3rd Street, Karani

¶25

Thottam, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶26

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

¶27

3/9

¶28

WP No. 21476 of 2025

¶29

For Petitioner(s): Mr.L. Dhamodharan For Respondent(s): Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel for R4 to R7

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of

¶32

the 1st respondent dated 25.04.2025 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd

¶33

respondent to inspect the property and to demolish the superstructure.

¶34

2.Heard Mr.L.Dhamodharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.N.R.R.Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing

¶35

on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned Standing Counsel

¶36

appearing on behalf of respondents 4 to 7.

¶37

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property at New

¶38

Door No.37, T.S.No.98, Block No.4, 3rd Street, Karani Thottam, Saidapet,

¶39

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

¶40

4/9 WP No. 21476 of 2025

¶41

Chennai 600 015. According to the petitioner, building is in a dilapidated condition and he sought for permission to demolish the building and to

¶42

reconstruct the same. While the petitioner was making such attempts, the taluk authority blocked the TSLR extract upon instruction given by the HR & CE Department. Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking for permission to demolish the dilapidated building. Since the same was not acted upon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18610 of 2024 before this Court seeking for appropriate directions. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 29.07.2024, directing the authorities to act upon the representation given by the petitioner.

¶43

4.Pursuant to the above order, the enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2025 has rejected the permission sought for by the petitioner and directed

¶44

the Executive Officer of the temple to approach the concerned authority seeking

¶45

for demolition of the property.

¶46

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

¶47

5/9 WP No. 21476 of 2025

¶48

5.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is claiming absolute

¶49

right over the subject property. In this regard, a suit has already been filed

¶50

before the competent Civil Court seeking for declaration of title and the same is pending. That apart, the petitioner's mother was originally the lessee of the property and proceedings were initiated by the concerned authority under Section 78 of the HR & CE Act against the mother and other legal heirs. Under such circumstances, the 1st respondent has taken into consideration those facts and has come to a conclusion that no such permission can be granted to the

¶51

petitioner, since the petitioner is already categorized as an encroacher.

¶52

6.The order passed by the 1st respondent does not suffer from any

¶53

illegality warranting the interference of this Court and hence, it is left open to

¶54

the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent Civil Court in

¶55

accordance with law.

¶56

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