Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 274 (MAD)

N. Bava v. Corporation of Chennai

2014-02-05

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent's locking and sealing and demolition notice, dated 2.1.2014, under letter reference No.AE/DIV.136/53/ 2013, issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, in respect of the petitioner's construction put up at western side corner of the ground floor portion, at No.34, Janpriya Center, Sir Theyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's physical possession of the property, by initiating punitive action of locking, sealing and demolishing the property in question. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents had issued a notice, dated 23.12.2013, under Sections 56 and 57, read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, for which a reply had been given by the petitioner, to the respondents, on 25.12.2013. However, the respondents have not considered the said reply given by the petitioner, instead, the 2nd respondent had issued the impugned notice, dated 2.1.2014, under Section 56, read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, requiring the locking, sealing and the demolition of the alleged construction put up by the petitioner, in the property in question, without obtaining the necessary planning permission, under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 4. It is has been further contended that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the respondents, on 1.2.2014, stating that he is the lawful tenant and that he had obtained an order of interim injunction, in I.A.No.10320 of 2008, in O.S.No.4498 of 2008, before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. However, the respondents have not considered the said reply given by the petitioner, on 1.2.2014, and no orders have been passed on the reply submitted by the petitioner, till date. In such circumstances, the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent, ought to be set aside. 5. However, the respondents have not considered the said reply given by the petitioner, on 1.2.2014, and no orders have been passed on the reply submitted by the petitioner, till date. In such circumstances, the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent, ought to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the 2nd respondent would consider the reply submitted by the petitioner, on 1.2.2014, and appropriate orders would be passed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to be passed by this Court. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, we find it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner, on 1.2.2014, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.