The Madras High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and AA. Nakkiran giving warning Action Against Erring State Officials observed that Not Known If Special Task Force Has Been Constituted For Preventing Encroachments'
Facts of the case
It was the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant of the property situated at Chennai and had entered into a rental agreement with M/s.TCCL to let out the said premises. Further the Petitioner's landlord also possessed a valid plan subject to the conditions in the CMDA office letter. At that time, the Respondents 3 to 5 under the extraneous influence of M/s Madras Ashoka Hotel Pvt.Ltd., issued a stop work notice to the Petitioner, calling upon the Petitioner to produce a copy of the plan or stop the construction work with immediate effect.
It was further stated that the said stop work notice does not specify what portion of the Petitioner's Construction is in violation or deviation. That apart, the stop notice states that the Petitioner's property was inspected but according to Petitioner, no inspection was conducted. The petitioner also sent a suitable reply to the Respondents, but without considering the same, the Respondents 3 to 5 has issued a Lock & Seal and Demolition notice to the Petitioner vide letter. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the Petitioner has filed an Appeal before the First Respondent with an application for interim stay. Since no orders have been passed in the Appeal, the Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.
Courts observation and Judgment
The court referred to the judgment in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [(1997) 11 SCC 123], wherein the Apex Court observed the following: "The removal of encroachment needs urgent action. But in this behalf what requires to be done by the competent authority is to ensure constant vigil on encroachment of the public places. Sooner the encroachment is removed when sighted, better would be the facilities or convenience for passing or re-passing of the pedestrians on the pavements or footpaths facilitating free flow of regulated traffic on the road or use of public places. On the contrary, the longer the delay, the greater will be the danger of permitting the encroachers claiming semblance of right to obstruct removal of the encroachment."
The court taking note of the decision cited above observed, "the encroachment has to be removed forthwith, since the petitioner and others were given notice and their objections were also heard and considered, in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Corporation to demolish the encroachment, in the presence of the petitioner on 13.7.2016 and also with a direction to the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the credit of the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order shall be treated as notice to the petitioner for demolishing the encroachment made in the land in question. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.16456 of 2016 is closed.'
The Court dismissing the writ petition remarked, 'the violated portions have got to be razed to the ground. In terms of the provisions of the Cantonment Act, the police shall give full protection for the demolition of the building and the petitioner is given a week's time from today, to remove the belongings in the building, otherwise, it will be construed that the belongings have been vacated by the petitioner. The present Writ Petition was dismissed with the above direction and observation.'
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/202009/cover_pic_6_1200x768.jpeg?1vJXVlbHWXYU4wxJOML_a7L1IMWk3.vm&size=770:433
