High Court · 2025

W.P.No.41892 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.11.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR ANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDARW.P.No.41892 of 2025Moorthy..PetitionerVs.1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai – 600 003.2. The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit – 39, Zone – 13 Greater Chennai Corporation No.65, Velacherry Main Road Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042.3. The Zonal Officer Zone – 13, Greater Chennai Corporation No.115, Doctor Muthulakshmi Street Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.4. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board No.5, Kamaraj Salai Chennai – 600 009.5. Udhayakumar..RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the entire records of the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in Z.O.XIII/Enc./Dn.177/001/2025 dated 12.02.2025 and quash the Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025same.For the Petitioner:Mr.R.ChellamuthuFor the Respondents:Ms.P.T.RamadeviStanding Counselfor R1 to R3Ms.Indumathi Venkatesanfor R4ORDER(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)Prayer sought herein is for a writ of certiorari, to call for the entire records of the impugned notice issued by the first respondent in Z.O.XIII/Enc./Dn.177/001/2025 dated 12.02.2025 and quash the same.2. In respect of the property at Plot No.339, Door No.116A, Throwpathy Amman Koil Street, Lakshmipuram, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042, Division – 177, Unit – 39, Zone – 13, the Chennai Corporation has been disputing to state that the petitioner and his wife namely, Gomathy, who is the owner of the tenement of the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, have occupied a public pathway or road belonging to the respondent Corporation.3. In this context, one Udhayakumar had already filed a writ Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025petition, where, some orders have been passed, pursuant to which, it is the stand of the respondent Corporation that, inspection had been made and survey had been conducted, where, they found that both the said Udhayakumar as well as the present petitioner Moorthy and his wife have encroached upon the public pathway/street, therefore, notices had to be given against them to remove such encroachments. 4. However, without giving a show-cause notice as contemplated under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 19981, straight away, orders of eviction has been passed on 12.02.2025, as against which, a reply, in detail, has been given by the present petitioner on 17.02.2025. Without considering the same, again, the same proceedings have been issued on 16.09.2025 for removal of such encroachment. Therefore, at this juncture, questioning the order dated 12.02.2025, the present writ petition has been filed. 5.1. Heard Mr.R.Chellamuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner, who would submit that, if at all any alleged encroachment has been made on the part of the petitioner and to 1Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1998”.Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025remove such alleged encroachment, if they want to invoke Section 128 of the Act of 1998, proper show-cause notice ought to have been given, which they have not given. Straightaway, since the order dated 12.02.2025 has been passed invoking Section 128 of the Act of 1998, that was the main ground the present writ petition has been filed to challenge the said order. 5.2. It is his further contention that, treating the said order dated 12.02.2025 as show-cause notice, already, a reply has been given in detail on the part of the petitioner as well as his wife Gomathy, who is the original allottee of the tenement dated 17.02.2025. Even that reply has not been considered by the respondent Corporation and in the month of September, 2025, again a notice to evict the petitioner has been issued and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed, he contended. 6. On the other hand, Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on instructions, would submit that, the removal of encroachment drive has been undertaken by the respondent Corporation only pursuant to the order that has already been passed in the writ petition filed by the said Udhayakumar and in this context, some time on 11.09.2024, Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025when survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner as well as the said Udhayakumar, it was found that both of them have encroached upon the public pathway. This is the reason why, such action has been initiated on 15.03.2025 and insofar as the order dated 12.02.2025 is concerned, even that had been replied subsequently on 17.02.2025 and after this, the grievance of the petitioner through the reply has not been considered so far, certainly, that would be considered by the respondent Corporation and thereafter, final orders would be passed invoking Section 128 of the Act of 1998 and in that case, there could be no further grievance on the part of the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel would submit.7. Having regard to the said submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both sides and taking into account the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:-(i) That the order dated 12.02.2025, which is impugned in this writ petition, is barely an order without show-cause notice invoking Section 128 of the Act of 1998, and since already the petitioner having treated the said order as show-cause Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025notice and a reply has been given on 17.02.2025 itself, there shall be a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the reply given by the petitioner on 17.02.2025 and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law and in that case, if any resurvey is required, as has been sought by the petitioner in his reply dated 17.02.2025, that could also be undertaken in the presence of the petitioner, his wife, namely Gomathy, who is the allottee and also in the presence of Udhayakumar, who triggered the order to remove such encroachment and thereupon, a decision could be arrived at by the respondent Corporation to remove such encroachments if it is found to be encroached on the public pathway. (ii) The needful, as indicated above, shall be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, no further coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 20258. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.46934 of 2025 is closed.(R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.) 24.11.2025 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Citation:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoIndex:Yes/No(drm)To:1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai – 600 003.2. The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit – 39, Zone – 13 Greater Chennai Corporation No.65, Velacherry Main Road Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042.3. The Zonal Officer Zone – 13, Greater Chennai Corporation No.115, Doctor Muthulakshmi Street Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.4. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board No.5, Kamaraj SalaiPage 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025 Chennai – 600 009.Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.41892 of 2025R. SURESH KUMAR, J.AND HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.(drm) W.P.No.41892 of 202524.11.2025Page 9 of 9