J.Sulthan vs The Commissioner Of Corporation
2021 Latest Caselaw 938 Mad

                                                                              W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 18.01.2021


                                                      CORAM:
                      THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                             AND
                           THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

                                           W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016
                                                    and
                                          C.M.P(MD)No.6352 of 2016

                    J.Sulthan                       ... Appellant / Writ Petitioner

                                                        Vs.

                    1.The Commissioner of Corporation,
                      Madurai Corporation,
                      Corporation Office,
                      Madurai.

                    2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
                      Madurai East Zone,
                      Madurai Corporation,
                      Madurai.                  ... Respondents / Respondents


                    Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
                    aside the order, dated 18.03.2016 made in W.P(MD)No.15566 of 2015
                    on the file of this Court.



                                For Appellant       : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah

                                For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali




http://www.judis.nic.in
                    1/6
                                                                          W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016



                                                 JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2016

passed in W.P(MD)No.15566 of 2015.

2.The appellant / writ petitioner, who was a licensee for one year

from the respondent-Corporation, has filed the Writ Petition seeking a

Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from disturbing or interfering

with the peaceful possession of the appellant's / writ petitioner's shop

situate in Ismailpuram, Madurai. Even as per the tender condition, the

appellant / writ petitioner should not encroach any portion of the

property belonging to the respondents / Corporation and any breach

of the condition would be liable for eviction. The respondents /

Corporation have received the complaint from one Venkatesh alleging

that the appellant / writ petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached the

property of the Corporation and also got water connection and the

said Venkatesh has also filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.18818 of

2013 before this Court to direct the first respondent therein to remove

the encroachment made by the second respondent therein. Pursuant

to the order of this Court, dated 26.08.2015, the respondents /

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016

Corporation directed the appellant / writ petitioner to remove the

unauthorised construction and to remove the water connection.

3.At the time of hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel

for the appellant / writ petitioner only sought for a breathing time to

vacate the premises, as he has been running the business and also

had undertaken before this Court that he would vacate and hand-over

the premises on or before 31.03.2016. The said submission of the

appellant / writ petitioner was recorded and he was directed to file an

undertaking affidavit before the authority concerned, namely, the first

respondent, to that effect.

4.It is now stated that no such affidavit of undertaking was filed

by the appellant / writ petitioner and he has also not vacated the

premises. Having given an undertaking that he would vacate the

premises on or before 31.03.2016, the appellant / writ petitioner has

preferred the above Writ Appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents /

Corporation would submit that since the appellant / writ petitioner did

not honour the undertaking given before this Court, the first

respondent / Corporation had taken possession of the property and it

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016

is kept under lock and seal from July 2016. Admittedly, no rent is paid

from July, 2016 and because of the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the

respondents / Corporation is also unable to proceed further by

auctioning the property.

6.In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned

counsel for the respondents / Corporation, the appellant / writ

petitioner cannot have any indulgence from this Court, as the

possession is already with the first respondent / Corporation and as

such, nothing survives for adjudication in this matter and it is left open

to the first respondent / Corporation to deal with the property in the

manner known to law.

7.With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No

costs. consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.] 18.01.2021 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ps

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To

1.The Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai Corporation, Corporation Office, Madurai.

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Madurai East Zone, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.

and

S.KANNAMMAL,J.

ps

W.A(MD)No.1044 of 2016

18.01.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in