High Court · 2025

W.P.No.23170 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.23170 of 2013and WMP.No.1 of 2013M.J.Abdul Rahman Sait… Petitionervs1.The District CollectorNilgiris DistrictUdhagamandalam2.The TahsildarUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District3.The Commissioner,Udhagamandalam MunicipalityThe Nilgiris District4.The Superintendent of PoliceUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District5.A.Natarajan6.P.A.Arunachalam7.K.a.Mohammed Ismail8.Rajendran9.Sekar10.Ubaidullah11.Rajendran12.Arumugam13.Rajamani1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 201314.Vincent… RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to invoke and exercise the power under Section 133(1)(d) of Crl.PC to demolish the 90 tenements belonging to the petitioner's family based on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/4798/2013 dated 26.06.2013 bearing Door.Nos.148, 152, 154, 155, 158 and 159 in S.Nos.D/2/11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 Udhagamandalam Taluk Town (East).For Petitioner : M/s.R.GanesanFor Respondents: Mr.N.Navin Kumar, GA for R1, 2 & 4 Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel for R3. Mr.S.Rajmakesh for R6 Mrs.V.Srimathi, for R7, 9, 11 & 13 No appearance for R5, 8, 12 & 14 R10 – Notice served – Left.O R D E RThe case of the petitioner is that the land measuring 2 ½ acres of land together with bungalow and 90 thatched horse stables. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said horse stables were constructed with mud mortar on three sides with thatched roofs and converted into very tiny tenements by fixing a wooden door on one side. The 80 tenants who are independently in occupation of the tenements which are in a very dilapidated and collapsing condition, causing imminent danger and nuisance to the public/passerby/pedestrians at any moment. On 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 201301.11.2012, the petitioner on behalf and for other joint holder gave a representation to the 1st respondent requesting to evacuate the tenants so as to safeguard and protect the general public. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent inspected the building and submitted a report dated 26.06.2013 in Na.Ka.P1/4798/2013 wherein it is stated that the tenements are more than 100 years old are in dilapidated and collapsing at any moment and therefore, the tenants have to be vacated and steps shall have to be taken for demolition of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation to the 3rd respondent on 24.06.2013. Pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.06.2013, the 3rd respondent issued notice in Na.Ka.No.2695/2013/F1 dated 26.06.2013, under Section 218(1)&(3) of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 to the petitioner and the tenants to vacate the tenements as they are in a very dangerous and dilapidated condition. Hence, the petitioner left with no other option filed the present writ petition.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to invoke the power under section 133(1)(d) of Cr.PC to demolish the 90 tenements belonging to the petitioner's family based on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent in 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013Na.Ka.No.A1/4798/2013 dated 26.06.2013. The learned counsel would further submit that he has filed application for demolition of the building, since, they are more than 100 years old constructed with mud mortar and standing in the hills region with dilapidated condition. The 3rd respondent/Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municipality, Niligiris District issued notice to the petitioner and 7 others on 26.06.2013, since they are residing in the building which are very dangerous and dilapidated condition.3. The learned counsel would further submit that the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar inspected the building and submitted a report dated 26.06.2013 in Na.Ka.P1/4798/2013 and forwarded a copy to the District Collector/1st respondent and inturn the 3rd respondent issued notice to the persons viz., petitioner, Arunachalam, Rajamani, Natarajan, Arumugam and Rajendran asking them to vacate the premises as the age of the building is more than 100 years, during heavy rains and winter season causing threat and it is in dangerous and dilapidated condition and there is no safety for the people residing in the building and directed to vacate the premises.4.The learned counsel brought to the knowledge of this Court that prior to issuance of notice dated 26.06.2013 by the 3rd respondent, the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013petitioner had sent a representation to the 3rd respondent on 24.06.2013, till date the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps to vacate the tenements or to demolish the building in the dilapidated condition.5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the petitioner submitted his application to demolish the building under the wrong provisions of law. Hence, it was not considered. He would also submit that no reply was also given to the petitioner to include the correct provisions of law for demolishing the building. He would further submit that there are 90 tenants who have occupied the premises and the petitioner in order to evict them ought to have invoked the provisions of Rent Control Act. Whereas, the petitioner had filed the application before the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers under section 218(1)&(3) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the official respondents as well the private respondents and perused the materials available on record.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 20137. It is an admitted fact that there are 90 tenants were residing in the said building /premises. They are the tenants, owners and the family members of the petitioner herein. The age of the building is more than 100 years built up with mud mortar. As per report of the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar dated 26.06.2013, among the 90 tenements 7 were in dangerous and dilapidated condition, in the report, the 2nd respondent had also directed the tenements to vacate the premises immediately, but till date the tenements have not vacated the buildings. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, the tenements are in dangerous and dilapidated conditions and vulnerable to different types of natural hazards, which may cause enormous destruction leading to substantial loss of precious human life and resources. 9. This Court is inclined to issue the following directions :-(i)The petitioner is hereby directed to give notice to all the 90 tenements viz., tenants and owners individually enclosing the copy of this order, wherein some houses were in dangerous and dilapidated condition, under the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013relevant provisions of law, by stipulating the time limit to vacate the houses and to offer their reply. (ii)After receipt of reply from the tenements who are residing in the premises as tenants and owners, the petitioner is also directed to give proper application to the 3rd respondent/Commissioner Udhagamandalam Municipality. (iii)The respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to conduct a joint inspection of the properties owned by the petitioner and other owners and tenants within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to initiate action on the buildings which are in dangerous and dilapidated conditions.(iv)With regard to the 7 houses which are in very dangerous and dilapidated condition as per the report of the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar dated 26.06.2013 in Na.Ka.P1/4798/2013. The authorities are directed to 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013initiate appropriate action to vacate the aforesaid 7 houses forthwith and other occupants if required, in order to prevent danger to the human life and resources.(v)After conducting the above joint inspection the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereon.10. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.20.02.2025Speaking order / Non-speaking orderIndex: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotshNOTE : ISSUE COPY ON 25.02.2025To1.The District CollectorNilgiris DistrictUdhagamandalam2.The TahsildarUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 20133.The Commissioner,Udhagamandalam MunicipalityThe Nilgiris District4.The Superintendent of PoliceUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD , J. tshW.P.No.23170 of 201320.02.202510/10

W.P.No.23170 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASADW.P.No.23170 of 2013and WMP.No.1 of 2013M.J.Abdul Rahman Sait… Petitionervs1.The District CollectorNilgiris DistrictUdhagamandalam2.The TahsildarUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District3.The Commissioner,Udhagamandalam MunicipalityThe Nilgiris District4.The Superintendent of PoliceUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District5.A.Natarajan6.P.A.Arunachalam7.K.a.Mohammed Ismail8.Rajendran9.Sekar10.Ubaidullah11.Rajendran12.Arumugam13.Rajamani1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 201314.Vincent… RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to invoke and exercise the power under Section 133(1)(d) of Crl.PC to demolish the 90 tenements belonging to the petitioner's family based on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/4798/2013 dated 26.06.2013 bearing Door.Nos.148, 152, 154, 155, 158 and 159 in S.Nos.D/2/11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 Udhagamandalam Taluk Town (East).For Petitioner : M/s.R.GanesanFor Respondents: Mr.N.Navin Kumar, GA for R1, 2 & 4 Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel for R3. Mr.S.Rajmakesh for R6 Mrs.V.Srimathi, for R7, 9, 11 & 13 No appearance for R5, 8, 12 & 14 R10 – Notice served – Left.O R D E RThe case of the petitioner is that the land measuring 2 ½ acres of land together with bungalow and 90 thatched horse stables. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said horse stables were constructed with mud mortar on three sides with thatched roofs and converted into very tiny tenements by fixing a wooden door on one side. The 80 tenants who are independently in occupation of the tenements which are in a very dilapidated and collapsing condition, causing imminent danger and nuisance to the public/passerby/pedestrians at any moment. On 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 201301.11.2012, the petitioner on behalf and for other joint holder gave a representation to the 1st respondent requesting to evacuate the tenants so as to safeguard and protect the general public. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent inspected the building and submitted a report dated 26.06.2013 in Na.Ka.P1/4798/2013 wherein it is stated that the tenements are more than 100 years old are in dilapidated and collapsing at any moment and therefore, the tenants have to be vacated and steps shall have to be taken for demolition of the same. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another representation to the 3rd respondent on 24.06.2013. Pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.06.2013, the 3rd respondent issued notice in Na.Ka.No.2695/2013/F1 dated 26.06.2013, under Section 218(1)&(3) of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 to the petitioner and the tenants to vacate the tenements as they are in a very dangerous and dilapidated condition. Hence, the petitioner left with no other option filed the present writ petition.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to invoke the power under section 133(1)(d) of Cr.PC to demolish the 90 tenements belonging to the petitioner's family based on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent in 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013Na.Ka.No.A1/4798/2013 dated 26.06.2013. The learned counsel would further submit that he has filed application for demolition of the building, since, they are more than 100 years old constructed with mud mortar and standing in the hills region with dilapidated condition. The 3rd respondent/Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municipality, Niligiris District issued notice to the petitioner and 7 others on 26.06.2013, since they are residing in the building which are very dangerous and dilapidated condition.3. The learned counsel would further submit that the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar inspected the building and submitted a report dated 26.06.2013 in Na.Ka.P1/4798/2013 and forwarded a copy to the District Collector/1st respondent and inturn the 3rd respondent issued notice to the persons viz., petitioner, Arunachalam, Rajamani, Natarajan, Arumugam and Rajendran asking them to vacate the premises as the age of the building is more than 100 years, during heavy rains and winter season causing threat and it is in dangerous and dilapidated condition and there is no safety for the people residing in the building and directed to vacate the premises.4.The learned counsel brought to the knowledge of this Court that prior to issuance of notice dated 26.06.2013 by the 3rd respondent, the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013petitioner had sent a representation to the 3rd respondent on 24.06.2013, till date the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps to vacate the tenements or to demolish the building in the dilapidated condition.5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the petitioner submitted his application to demolish the building under the wrong provisions of law. Hence, it was not considered. He would also submit that no reply was also given to the petitioner to include the correct provisions of law for demolishing the building. He would further submit that there are 90 tenants who have occupied the premises and the petitioner in order to evict them ought to have invoked the provisions of Rent Control Act. Whereas, the petitioner had filed the application before the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers under section 218(1)&(3) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the official respondents as well the private respondents and perused the materials available on record.5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 20137. It is an admitted fact that there are 90 tenants were residing in the said building /premises. They are the tenants, owners and the family members of the petitioner herein. The age of the building is more than 100 years built up with mud mortar. As per report of the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar dated 26.06.2013, among the 90 tenements 7 were in dangerous and dilapidated condition, in the report, the 2nd respondent had also directed the tenements to vacate the premises immediately, but till date the tenements have not vacated the buildings. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, the tenements are in dangerous and dilapidated conditions and vulnerable to different types of natural hazards, which may cause enormous destruction leading to substantial loss of precious human life and resources. 9. This Court is inclined to issue the following directions :-(i)The petitioner is hereby directed to give notice to all the 90 tenements viz., tenants and owners individually enclosing the copy of this order, wherein some houses were in dangerous and dilapidated condition, under the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013relevant provisions of law, by stipulating the time limit to vacate the houses and to offer their reply. (ii)After receipt of reply from the tenements who are residing in the premises as tenants and owners, the petitioner is also directed to give proper application to the 3rd respondent/Commissioner Udhagamandalam Municipality. (iii)The respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to conduct a joint inspection of the properties owned by the petitioner and other owners and tenants within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to initiate action on the buildings which are in dangerous and dilapidated conditions.(iv)With regard to the 7 houses which are in very dangerous and dilapidated condition as per the report of the 2nd respondent/Tahsildar dated 26.06.2013 in Na.Ka.P1/4798/2013. The authorities are directed to 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013initiate appropriate action to vacate the aforesaid 7 houses forthwith and other occupants if required, in order to prevent danger to the human life and resources.(v)After conducting the above joint inspection the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereon.10. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.20.02.2025Speaking order / Non-speaking orderIndex: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NotshNOTE : ISSUE COPY ON 25.02.2025To1.The District CollectorNilgiris DistrictUdhagamandalam2.The TahsildarUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 20133.The Commissioner,Udhagamandalam MunicipalityThe Nilgiris District4.The Superintendent of PoliceUdhagamandalamThe Nilgiris District.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.23170 of 2013J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD , J. tshW.P.No.23170 of 201320.02.202510/10