Madras High Court

S. Adhilakshmi vs The Commissioner on 21 April, 2021

                                                                      Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 21.04.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

                                              W.P.No.9920 of 2021 &
                                              WMP.No.10534 of 2021

                     S. Adhilakshmi                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     1. The Commissioner,
                        Corporation of Chennai,
                        Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.

                     2. The Assistant Commissioner,
                        Corporation of Chennai,
                        Adyar Zone (Ward No.112),
                        Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar,
                        Chennai 600 020.

                     3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
                        Velachery Zone,
                        61, Velachery Main Road,
                        Chennai 600 042.

                     4. Bhuvaneswari Nagar & VGP,
                        Selva Nagar Welfare Association,
                        No.51, VGP, Selva Nagar,
                        Velachery, Chennai 600 042.

                                                                                    .. Respondents



                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                           Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021




                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India praying

                     for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider

                     the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2020 and restore the lands of

                     the petitioner of an extent of 3020 sq.ft. comprised in Old Survey No.331/1

                     part 331/11 now as per computer survey No.331/12, T.S.No.17/2 of Block

                     No.192 and T.S.No.33/4 of Block No.195 of Velachery Village, Guindy,

                     Mambalam Taluk, Chennai to its original status.



                                     For Petitioner    : Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for
                                                         Mrs.AL. Ganthimathi

                                     For Respondents : Mrs. P.T.Ramadevi, Standing Counsel
                                                       for R1 to R3

                                                        ORDER

According to the petitioner, she purchased a property measuring to an

extent of 5088 sq.ft., comprised in Old Survey No.331/1 Part, New Survey

No.331/11 of Velachery Village, Guindy - Mambalam Taluk, Chennai by a

registered sale deeds dated 01.06.2006 and 13.03.2007 bearing respective

Document Nos.2543 of 2006 and 1232 of 2007 from M/s.VGP Agencies and

since then, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021

After purchase, patta was also mutated in the petitioner's name. While so, the

4th respondent made a false claim against the petitioner's vendor that the said

property is set apart for the road, but in the sanctioned plan, no such road was

formed over the aforementioned property. To protect their interest, the

petitioner's vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.2280 of 2004 before the V Assistant

City Civil Court, Chennai, for permanent injunction; and the fourth

respondent also filed a counter suit in O.S.No.14 of 2005 seeking declaration

to declare the said property as public road; and now, both the suits are pending

for trial.

2.The petitioner further stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid

suits, the 4th respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.14189 of 2004 against

M/s.V.G.P. and Company and Corporation of Chennai, without making the

petitioner or her vendor as party to the same. By order dated 14.03.2007, the

said writ petition was allowed with a direction to remove the encroachment on

the 40 feet public road. On coming to know about the same, the petitioner

filed a review application, which was dismissed. It is also stated that since the

property purchased by the petitioner was lying vacant, the public started using

the 24 feet private road to enter into the adjacent layout in S.No.317/1A1 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021

therefore, the petitioner constructed a 4 feet high compound wall to prevent

trespass by the third parties. That apart, there were continuous disturbances

with the peaceful possession of the petitioner by the Corporation. So, the

petitioner filed a WP.No.10238 of 2020, which was dismissed by order dated

04.08.2020. Challenging the same, she filed WA.No.904 of 2020, before a

Division Bench of this Court and the said appeal was disposed of, by order

dated 12.10.2020, by observing that the observation made by the learned

Single Judge in paragraph 10 of the order does not and cannot travel beyond

what was said by the Division Bench and therefore, any action to be taken by

the corporation, certainly, has to be in accordance with law and not otherwise;

and that, it will be open to the petitioner to contest the position before the

Corporation accordingly and the Corporation will be obliged to consider the

same and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner made a

representation dated 12.11.2020 to the respondents requesting to restore the

subject property to its original status. However, till date, no action was taken

on the same. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking

appropriate direction to the respondents 1 to 3.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021

3.Though the petitioner raised very many averments in the affidavit

filed in support of this writ petition, the learned senior counsel appearing for

the petitioner, during the course of arguments, confined the relief to the extent

of seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation

of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in

WA.No.904 of 2020, for which, the learned standing counsel appearing for

the respondents 1 to 3 has no serous objection.

4.It is seen from the records that the petitioner earlier filed

WP.No.10238 of 2020 seeking a mandamus, forbearing the respondents from

interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject

property. By order dated 04.08.2020, the said writ petition was dismissed, by

observing as follows:

“10.In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that no further orders can be passed in the present writ petition and the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench is still in force and the Corporation of Chennai is expected to comply with the said order in its letter and spirit.” Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred WA.No.904 of 2020,

which by judgment dated 12.10.2020, was disposed of with the following

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021

observations:

“6. In our considered opinion, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment does not and cannot travel beyond what was said by the Division Bench and therefore, any action to be taken by the corporation, certainly, has to be in accordance with law and not otherwise.

7. It will be open to the appellant to contest the position before the Corporation accordingly and the corporation will be obliged to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon.

8. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed. The appeal is consigned to records. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.” Consequent to the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner made a detailed

representation dated 12.11.2020 and the same is kept pending.

5. Such being the factual matrix, having regard to the submissions now

made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the respondents

1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2020 and pass

appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Order in WP.No.9920 of 2021 dt. 21.04.2021

also in the light of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court

dated 12.10.2020 in WA.No.904 of 2020 as referred to above, within a period

of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.04.2021