S.Velusamy vs The Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 13544 Mad

                                                                                 W.P.No. 14042 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 08.07.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                                 W.P.No. 14042 of 2021



                     S.Velusamy,                                                 ..Petitioner

                                                                 Vs

                     The Commissioner,
                     Mayiladuthurai Municipality,
                     Municipality Officer,
                     Mayiladuthurai.                                             ..Respondent



                     Prayer:           Writ   Petition   is   filed   under   Article    226       of
                     Constitution of India for writ of certiorarified mandamus,
                     calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.1398/2021/A2 dated
                     26.03.2021 on the file of the respondent and quash the
                     same and consequently direct the respondents to convey
                     the land in T.S.No.113/3A to a extent of 198 sq.ft. in favour
                     of the petitioner as per the directions of their Hon'ble court
                     in S.A.No.1243/1991 dated 23.10.2002.


                     1/7


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            W.P.No. 14042 of 2021




                                    For Petitioner          : Ms.M.Sneha
                                                              For M/s.J.Ravindran

                                    For Respondent          : Mr.A.Selvendran, GA

                                                      *****


                                                     ORDER

Challenge in the writ petition is the impugned

order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No. 1398/2021/A2,

dated 26.03.2021. The contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that the petitioner and his predecessors

have been paying all the dues to the respondent without any

arrears from the year 1933.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondent and perused the records.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No. 14042 of 2021

3. The respondent had issued notice for public auction

in respect of the petitioner's premises to the extent of 192

sq.ft. comprising in Survey No.113/3A. The writ petitioner

has filed a suit in O.S.No.179 of 1985 before the District

Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. The said suit was dismissed

on 30.12.1989. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner

has filed an Appeal in A.S.No. 27 of 1990 before the Sub

Court, Mayiladuthurai. The said appeal was also dismissed.

Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree, the

petitioner has preferred a Second Appeal before this Court

in S.A.No.1243/1991. The said Second Appeal was decreed

in favour of the petitioner by this Court on 23.10.2002,

directing the respondent municipality to convey the

aforesaid property measuring 198 sq.ft in T.S.No. 113/3A in

favour of the petitioner on the prevailing market price. As

directed by this Court, the petitioner has sent a lease

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No. 14042 of 2021

amount along with the order of this Court dated 23.10.2002

requesting the respondent to convey the property. The

same was returned by the respondent/municipality by letter

dated 26.03.2021 stating that there is no lease with respect

to the said property and refused to convey the said

property. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the

respondent municipality did not execute the sale deed in

favour of the petitioner despite the decree obtained in

Second Appeal before this Court.

5. It appears that the judgment was passed by this

Court in Second Appeal No.1243/1991 as early on

23.10.2002 and there are no records filed before this Court

to show that the petitioner has approached the respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No. 14042 of 2021

to comply the said order till the year 2017. After a length of

time, the petitioner has made representation only on

28.03.2017 to the respondent to comply with the directions

issued in the judgment passed by this Court in the Second

Appeal.

6. On perusal of the reply/letter dated 26.03.2021 sent

by the respondent municipality, which is impugned in the

writ petition, it is stated that the aforementioned property is

belongs to the Municipality and being used as foot path,

therefore, they cannot execute the said property to the

petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and in view of the statement made by the respondent in the

impugned order, this Court feels that it would not be

appropriate for this Court to go into the merits and to decide

the disputed facts of the case. Since the petitioner's prayer

is for a direction to the respondent to execute the sale deed,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No. 14042 of 2021

it is always open to the petitioner to seek remedy before the

Civil Court as permissible under the law.

8. This Court further makes it clear that insofar as

continuance of lease is concerned, it is open to the

petitioner to make a fresh representation to the authorities

concerned along with all relevant documents.

9. In fine, the writ petition is dismissed with the above

observations. No costs.

08.07.2021

Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes ak

To The Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai Municipality, Municipality Officer, Mayiladuthurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No. 14042 of 2021

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

ak

W.P.No. 14042 of 2021

08.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/