Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 ss. 220, 222
Judgment
WP No. 33203 of 2022__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDERWP No. 33203 of 2022andWMP Nos. 32614 & 32615 of 20221.E.KamarajS/o. Elumalai, Door No. 38, Periyar Street, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 532.E.KavithaD/o. Elumalai, Door No. 38, Periyar Street, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 533. VeluS/o. Elumalai, Door No. 38, Periyar Street, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 53..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The CommissionerGreater Chennai corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai. 2. Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central)Greater Chennai corporation Zonal office VII, Ripon Building, Chennai3.The Executive engineer (VII)Greater Chennai corporation Zonal office VII, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 534. Asst. Executive Engineer (Unit 19)Greater Chennai corporation Zonal office VII, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.
33203 of 2022__________Page2 of 45. The Zonal officer VIIRamapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 53..Respondent(s)To call for records pertaining to the Notice dated 21.10.2022 issued by the 2nd to 5th respondents vide Z.O. No. VII C.No / 3528/ 2022 under Section 220 R/w, 222 of CCMC Act 1919 for evict the petitioner from the house property and quash the same.WP No. 33203 of 2022 For Petitioner(s):Mr.B.Madheswaran for Mr.I.Arockia SelvarajFor Respondent(s):Mr. Arun Babu, Standing Counsel for Corporationfor R1 to R5Order(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)Notice issued under Section 220 read with 222 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, dated 22.11.2022, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.2. A show cause notice issued would provide no cause for institution of writ proceedings. The authorities have issued notice calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachments within fifteen days.
Operative part
Either the petitioners have to remove the same or in alternate, submit a representation along with documents, if any, to defend their case. However, no writ would lie. Thus, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their explanation, if any, to the respondents within a period of ten days from today. In the event of receipt of any representation, the same may be considered by the authorities and a final https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33203 of 2022__________Page3 of 4decision is to be taken for removal of encroachments, if any identified. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.32615 of 2022 is closed and W.M.P.No.32614 of 2022 is ordered on payment of separate court fee. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 13-03-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoVSITo1.The CommissionerGreater Chennai corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai2.Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central)Greater Chennai corporation Zonal office VII, Ripon Building, Chennai3.The Executive engineer (VII)Greater Chennai corporation Zonal office VII, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 534.
Asst. Executive Engineer (Unit 19)Greater Chennai corporation Zonal office VII, Ramapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 535. The Zonal officer VIIRamapuram, Ambattur, Chennai 53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 33203 of 2022__________Page4 of 4S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.ANDK.SURENDER J.VSIWP No. 33203 of 2022andWMP No. 32614 & 32615 of 202213-03-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 — ss. 220, 222.
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.