Nos.3237 and 3238 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011 in both writ petitionsMrs.M.Santha v. The Commissioner,Chengalpattu Municipality, Chengalpattu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDate: 10.2.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition Nos.3237 and 3238 of 2011 andM.P.No.1 of 2011 in both writ petitionsMrs.M.Santha, ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3237 of 2011 Mrs.K.Rani, ... Petitioner in W.P.No.3238 of 2011 vs. The Commissioner, Chengalpattu Municipality, Chengalpattu. ... Respondent in both writpetitionsWrit Petition No.3237 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orderNa.Ka.2/2011/F1, dated 02.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondent his men, agents or subordinates from evicting and demolishing ther thatched house of the petitioner at New No.23, Old No.43, Kailasanadhar Koil Street, Chengalpattu 603 002, except by Due Process of Law. Writ Petition No.3238 of 2011 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned OrderNa.Ka.2/2011/F1, dated 02.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondent his men, agents or subordinates from evicting and demolishing the house of the petitioner at New No.43, Old No.28, Kailasanadhar Koil Street, Chengalpattu 603 002, except by Due Process of Law. For Petitioner in both writ petitions : Mr.P.S.RatnamaniFor Respondent in both writ petitions :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERWrit Petition No.3237 of 2011 is filed praying to issue a Writof Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice Na.Ka.2/2011/F1, dated 02.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondent his men, agents or subordinates from evicting and demolishing the house of the petitioner at New No.23, Old No.43,Kailasanadhar Koil Street, Chengalpattu 603 002, except by DueProcess of Law.
Writ Petition No.3238 of 2011 is filed praying to issue aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned notice Na.Ka.2/2011/F1, dated 02.02.2011 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently forebear the respondent his men, agents or subordinates from evicting and demolishing the house of the petitioner at New No.43, Old No.28,Kailasanadhar Koil Street, Chengalpattu 603 002, except by DueProcess of Law.
Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both parties, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal.
Petitioner in both the cases is aggrieved by the tenor of the notice issued by the respondent under Sections 182, 183 and 199 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The Act provides for taking action under Section 182 after issuance of notice in writing and after giving two weeks time to the alleged encroacher to remove the encroachment. In this case, the impugned order directs the petitioner in both the cases to remove the structure stating that it is an encroachment.
Petitioner in both the cases can prove before the authority that she has not encroached or engaged in unauthorized construction by a reply referring to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu DistrictMunicipalities Act. This has been emphasized by this Court in the case of Ramaraju.T. - vs. - The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005(2) CTC 741 (FB).
In view of the mandate as per law and the decision as above and in order to avoid further litigation, this Court is of the view that instead of setting aside the impugned notice/order, it will be appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit their reply treating the impugned proceeding as a show-cause notice. Such reply should besubmitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
On receipt of such reply together with sufficient documents, if any, the authority shall conclude the proceedings in the matter as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu DistrictMunicipalities Act, 1920. Till a final order is passed based on the reply of the petitioners, the authority shall not engage in removal or demolition of the structure in dispute. Both the Writ Petitionsare disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrartsToThe Commissioner, Chengalpattu Municipality, Chengalpattu. 2 cc To Mr.P.S.Ratnamani, Advocate, SR.10026 W.P.Nos.3237 & 3238 of 2011 vsv(co)pmk.28.2.2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.