Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs M/S.Sakthi Enterprises on 21 January, 2022
W.A.No.31 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.A.No.31 of 2022
The Branch Manager
SIDCO Industrial Estate
Administrative Block Building,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. .. Appellant
Vs
M/s.Sakthi Enterprises,
Rep. By its Partner,
Tmt. A. Madurai Meenatchi,
Tiny Shed No : 257 (SP),
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058. .. Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
the order dated 12.11.2021 made in W.P.No.11851 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Prabhaharan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 12 November
2021 recorded on W.P.No.11851 of 2015. This appeal is by the sole
respondent in the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.31 of 2022
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that, the
relief granted by the writ court in substance has acknowledged the
encroachment by the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the relief as
prayed for by the writ petitioner should not have been granted. It is
further submitted that to remove the encroachment, the present
appellant would be required to go to Civil Court which would be time
consuming and therefore the action of the appellant of not approving
the re-constitution of the partnership firm of the writ petitioner ought
not to have been interfered with by learned Single Judge. It is
submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and
having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:-
3.1 The writ petitioner was allotted a plot by the present
appellant in an Industrial Estate. The said allottee is a partnership firm.
In due course of time, there was re-constitution of the firm i.e., some
of the partners retired and remaining partners become full fledged
partners. It is this re-constitution of partnership firm which was put to
the notice of the appellant authorities to take note of it on record. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.31 of 2022
was not accepted by the present appellant on the ground that
according to it, the writ petitioner has encroached on some part of the
land of SIDCO.
3.2 Learned Single Judge, on the basis of the material on
record, recorded satisfaction that the point at issue in the writ petition
was not whether the writ petitioner was encroacher or not. The point
at issue was only that, when there was change in the constitution of
the partnership firm, whether the SIDCO could have refused to take
note of it on its record allegedly on the ground that, according to
SIDCO there was some encroachment by the writ petitioner. The
existence of encroachment or otherwise could not be a guiding factor
for updating record of SIDCO. Re-constitution of partnership firm and
taking note of that fact on record had nothing to do with the fact
whether there was any encroachment or otherwise. The relief granted
by the writ court therefore can not be said to be erroneous in any
manner which may call for any interference by us. This appeal
therefore needs to be dismissed.
4. We make it clear that non-interference in this appeal is not
to mean any observation with regard to the alleged encroachment as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.31 of 2022
perceived by the present appellant.
5. This appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected C.M.P.No.416 of 2022 would not survive.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
21.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
ssm/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.31 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
ssm
W.A.No.31 of 2022
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
