Madras High Court
Philomina vs The Commissioner on 18 October, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.3070 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.A.No.3070 of 2024 and
CMP Nos.23180, 23182 of 2024
Philomina ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Chengalpattu Municipality,
Chengalpattu Town,
Chengalpattu Taluk and District.
2. The Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu Taluk & District.
3. John Kribakaran ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 14.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.1900 of 2024 and
consequently quash the impugned demolition order in Na.Ka.1891 of
2023/F1/ 27.10.2023 passed by the first respondent.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3070 of 2024
For the Appellant : Mr.T.R.Shanmugam
For the Respondent : Mrs.V.Yamunadevi,
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The writ petitioner has filed present appeal as against the order
passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1900 of 2024 dated
14.06.2024, in and by which her prayer to quash the impugned demolition
order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Chengalpattu Municipality was
declined.
2. According to the appellant, she is residing along with her family at
No.38, 4th Cross Street, TELC compound, Anna Nagar, Chengalput Town,
Chengalput District by paying property tax, electricity consumption charges
for several years from her childhood days. It is contended by her that, her
father Mr.Kesavelu, while he was alive, had entered into a oral lease
agreement with one Mrs.Scilia, d/o Mr.Nathan, three decades before and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said Scilia and Nathan already expired. Hence, the appellant has right and
title over the property by adverse possession.
2.1. It is contended by the appellant that on the application moved by
the third respondent, the first respondent herein has passed the demolition
order, without inspecting the site; without considering the possession of the
appellants for years together; and also without issuing any pre-notice to the
appellant. Hence, she filed the said writ petition to quash the demolition
order. After hearing both side, learned single Judge has dismissed the writ
petitioner and the said order is impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the appellant and
her family have claimed adverse possession over the property and they have
been in possession of the property for several years by paying necessary
property tax, electricity consumption charges and hence, the demolition
order ought to have been quashed.
4. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent before the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
court reveals that one Rosemary rani w/o Anthonynathan had made an
application seeking permission to demolish the building in Ward No.6,
Block No.5, T.S.No.11, Door No.16, 4th cross street, TELC Compound,
Anna Nagar, Chengalput Town, since the building is in damaged condition.
It is further stated that the said application was moved by the third
respondent, who is the power of attorney of the principal owners namely 1.
Rosemary rani, 2) Ignatius Ganthinathan and 3) Rebecca of the property and
he had produced all the title deeds and relevant documents pertaining to the
property. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, after issuing
impugned notice dated 27.10.2023, the appellant herein was issued notice
dated 30.12.2023, calling upon her to produce the title documents, in order
to substantiate her contention,however, she had not produced any proof for
her claims over the property. It the contention in the counter affidavit that
the permission for demolition was issued in the name of the owner of the
property, only based on prima facie proof of title to the property and not in
favour of the third respondent.
5. Learned Single Judge after hearing both side and upon perusing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
documents has observed as " this court does not find any scope to interfere
with the impugned demolition order passed by the first respondent. If at
all the petitioner claims any right either as a tenant or by virtue of adverse
possession, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the competent
civil court and establish the same and the petitioner cannot invoke writ
jurisdiction and all the disputing facts involved in the writ petition
required to be adjudicated by way of letting evidence by both the parties
and the writ court cannot decide the same".
6. Considering all the above facts and also after perusing the
documents carefully, we are of the view that the issue of adverse possession
/ right and title over the property between the parties can be decided only by
the civil court and hence it is for the appellant to approach the civil court
seeking remedy. Further, only after verifying the title documents, the first
respondent has issued the demolition order, based on the application made
by the original owner of the property. As such, we do not find any material
reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge, as it is
right and well founded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. For the forgoing reasons, the Writ appeal is devoid of merits and is
dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected CMP
Nos.23180, 23182 of 2024 are closed.
(D.K.K.J.) (P.B.B.J.)
18.10.2024
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Commissioner,
Chengalpattu Municipality,
Chengalpattu Town,
Chengalpattu Taluk and District.
2. The Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu Taluk & District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mst
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
