Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 722 (MAD)

Aziz v. District Collector

2012-02-10

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein in RC.D7.No.29154/2000, dated 3.9.2002 and quash the same and consequently forbear respondents herein, their men, servants and agents or anyone claiming under them from evicting the petitioner from the portion of land measuring 7.70 meters x 2.60 meters in S.No. 4221/2, Glenrock Road, Uthagamandalam and from disturbing the petitioner from carrying his business therein. 2. The petitioner challenges the demolition notice dated 3.9.2002. Based on the writ appeal order dated 24.9.2002, the Ooty municipality was directed to issue notice on an enquiry relating to land encroachment by the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted on 9.7.2002 and the petitioner was thereafter informed on 8.9.2002 that the representation is not acceptable and that the shop has been unauthorisedly constructed in the land in question contrary to per Hill area Special Building Rules 1993. It is stated in the impugned order that the construction of the building is in violation of Rule 3 (1) of the Hill Area Special Building Rules 1993. Consequently notice under Section 217 (J)(I)(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality( Amendment Act) 1920 was issued calling upon the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in paragraph 8, it has been stated as follows:- (8) Thereafter, there was no further notice by the 2nd respondent as directed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the first respondent herein has passed the impugned order dated 3.9.2002 as a demolition notice under section 217 (J)(I)(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality( Amendment Act) stating that the construction of the shed was in violation of Rule 3 of Hill Area Special Building Rules 1993 and the said unauthorised construction should be demolished within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, the Municipality will be constrained to carry out such demolition. On receipt of the said order, I again submitted a Written Objection in detail to the first respondent herein also bringing to her notice that as against the order dated 9.8.2002 of the 2nd respondent herein a review was filed before the Government and in such circumstances further proceedings should be kept in abeyance and I also stated the entire proceedings may be dropped. I also issued a Telegram to the respondents 1 and 2 herein stating that as against the order dated 9.8.2002, a review was filed before the Government and hence action may be postponed. However, without taking note of my strong and genuine objections have caused to the superstructures put up by the petitioner's father and are threatening to dispossess us from the very occupation of the place measuring 7.70 x 2.60 meters in the private patta lands in S.No.4221/2." 3. The writ petition was admitted and interim stay was granted on 29.10.2002 and made absolute on 17.9.2003. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Ooty. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the unauthorised construction has been demolished on 16.9.2002 and nothing survives for adjudication. Paragraph 5 of the counter reads as follows:- "On 3.9.2002, the Collector, who is the authority under Chapter X-A of the Act finding that the petitioner's construction is a non-residential one, issued demolition notice stating that the petitioner has unauthorisedly constructed a shop measuring 7.70 x 2.60 meters in violation of Rule 3 (1) of the Hill Area Special Building Rules 1993 and that the construction of the building without obtaining the permission of the Authority concerned is in violation of Section 217 (J)(I)(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality( Amendment Act) In exercise of powers under Section 217 (J)(I)(c) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality( Amendment Act), the Collector issued notice dated 3.9.2002 to demolish the unauthorised construction. The petitioner was served with the above notice on 6.9.2002. Thereafter, giving sufficient time of nearly 10 days, the unauthorised construction of the petitioner was demolished by the respondents 1 and 2 herein on 16.9.2002. As such nothing survives in the matter to be adjudicated before this Hon'ble Court since the impugned orders have taken effect or served the purpose." This stand is not disputed by the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, giving sufficient time of nearly 10 days, the unauthorised construction of the petitioner was demolished by the respondents 1 and 2 herein on 16.9.2002. As such nothing survives in the matter to be adjudicated before this Hon'ble Court since the impugned orders have taken effect or served the purpose." This stand is not disputed by the petitioner. 5. In such view of the matter, the petitioner has to pursue the revision said to have been filed before the Government and work out his remedy in accordance with law as nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication. This writ petition is therefore closed. No costs.