Thilagavathi v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.02.2025 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI & W.M.P No.3577 of 2025 in W.P.No.3200 of 2025 Thilagavathi W/o.Janagiraman .. Petitioner vs The Commissioner Madurantakam Municipality Chengalpattu District .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of proceedings of the respondent in impugned order dated 20.01.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No.1590/2024/F1, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in Survey No.976 & 977/3 situated at Door No.7A, Hospital Road, Madurantakam Town & Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Ragavendran

For Respondent :

Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.) Captioned main 'Writ Petition' ['WP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed inter alia assailing an 'order dated 20.01.2025 bearing e/f/vz;.1590/2024/vg;1 made by sole respondent' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Mr.R.Ragavendran, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the impugned order pertains to 'Survey Nos.976 & 977/3 situate within Madurantakam Municipality and it is Door No.7A, Hospital Road, Madurantakam Town & Taluk, Chengalpattu District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

3. Learned counsel submitted that writ petitioner is licensee under sole respondent qua said property and therefore, the impugned order is bad.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for sole respondent and submits that this is the third round of litigation qua subject matter and writ petitioner in response to the showcause has not even taken the plea that she is a licensee.

6. Considering the limited scope of the captioned main WP, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main WP was taken up in the Admission Board.

7. Short facts are that one Mr.V.Kumar filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24872 of 2024 alleging encroachment on both sides of the main entrance of Government Hospital Road, Madurantakam, Chengalpattu Distrrict and this writ petition came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench in and by an order dated 02.09.2024 directing the official respondents to consider writ petitioner's (V.Kumar's) representation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to all concerned; that thereafter, the sole

respondent before us issued a notice dated 18.11.2024 bearing reference e/f/vz;.1590/2024/vg;1 calling upon the writ petitioner to remove the encroachment; that this 18.11.2024 notice of respondent was assailed by the writ petitioner in this Court by way of a writ petition vide W.P.No.37767 of 2024; that this W.P.No.37767 of 2024 along with WMP thereat came to be disposed of by another Hon'ble Division Bench to which one of us (M.Sundar.J.,) was a party on 03.01.2025 wherein 18.11.

2024 notice was directed to be treated as 'show-cause notice' ['SCN' for the sake of brevity], writ petitioner was given 7 days time to respond and sole respondent was directed to pass an order considering the representation; that this exercise was put in place by this Court vide Section 128(1)(b) and proviso thereat of 'the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1999)' {hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity}; that thereafter writ petitioner sent a representation dated 06.01.

stating that it is a residence; that thereafter, sole respondent made the impugned order; that assailing the impugned order captioned WP has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for writ petitioner contended that the writ petitioner's spouse one Thiru.K.Janakiraman was a licensee under sole respondent qua said property and therefore, the impugned order is bad.

9. We carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and we find that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The reasons are set out infra. To be noted, while giving an adumbration of the reasons, we are setting out the point/s and with regard to some points discussion on the same and our dispositive reasoning are rolled into one with the point:

(a) Though the writ petitioner now contends that her spouse was a licensee qua said property, in the writ petitioner's response to SCN being response dated 06.01.2025 which has been cited as No.6 in the reference

in the impugned order, writ petitioner has not made a whisper about the licence. A scanned reproduction of 06.01.2025 response of writ petitioner to SCN is as follows:

b) The receipts placed before us in the name of one Thiru.K.Janakiraman are of the year 1994 and 1995. There are no receipts thereafter;

c) There is no licence deed;

d) On a demurrer, even if the writ petitioner is construed to be a licensee, possession of demised property i.e., said property is not transferred in favour of a licensee (unlike a

lease). Therefore, as regards the licensee, right of reentry can be exercised by the licensor. Therefore, even on a demurrer we find that writ petition deserves to be dismissed; e) Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that there are other similar encroachers and writ petitioner has been singled out for coercive action. In response to this, learned State counsel submitted that if there are other encroachments, action will be kick started i.e., commenced and concluded as expeditiously as the business of sole respondent would permit. This submission is recorded;

f) Learned State counsel also pointed out that the impugned order itself clearly mentions that action is being taken against encroachers one after the other. This submission is also recorded. To be noted, a scanned reproduction of the impugned order is as follows:

In any event, writ petitioner cannot claim equality in illegality.

10. Ergo, the sum sequitur is, captioned main WP is dismissed and captioned WMP thereat also perishes with the main WP and the same is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [M.S., J] [K.G.T., J] 03.02.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order gpa

To The Commissioner Madurantakam Municipality Chengalpattu District

M.SUNDAR,J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J., gpa 03.02.2025