K.Adhikesavan v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR K.Adhikesavan ..

Petitioner v.

1. The Chairman Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) Thalamuthu Natrarajan Maligai Egmore, Chennai 600 008

2. The Commissioner Tambaram Corporation No.28, Muthuranga Mudali Street Tambaram West Tambaram, Chennai 600 045

3. P.Rajesh ..

Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2022 within stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court and remove the unauthorized construction put up by the 3rd respondent in T.S.No.79, as per Town Survey Ward No.G, Block No.50, Old Survey No.30/1 of an extent of 10900 sq.ft.,

Adhilakshmi Second Cross Street, Rajeswari Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai 600 073.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.K.Venkateswaran For Respondents ::

Mr.C.N.Vinobha Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.B.Harikrishnan for R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action on the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2022 within a stipulated time, to remove the unauthorized construction put up by the third respondent in T.S.No.79, as per Town Survey Ward No.G, Block No.50, Old Survey No.30/1 to an extent of 10900 sq.ft., Adhilakshmi Second Cross Street, Rajeswari Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent has now obtained planning permission for putting up construction in a property

owned by the third respondent. In the representation of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner and his family members are the absolute owners of the house site plot, in which the third respondent had obtained building plan permission. The representation was therefore to the effect that the third respondent had obtained planning permission by producing fabricated documents and hence to cancel the permission granted in favour of the third respondent.

3. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent states that the third respondent has obtained building licence by proceedings dated 12.06.2023 and that the building permission would be valid only upto 31.12.2024.

4. It is represented by the learned counsel for the third respondent that a civil suit is already pending and that the third respondent has obtained an order of injunction in his favour in respect of the same property.

5. Having regard to the above facts, this Court is of the view that the

petitioner has now approached this Court in order to circumvent the interim order granted by the civil Court. Therefore, finding no merits whatsoever, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 29.02.2024 ss To

1. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Thalamuthu Natrarajan Maligai Egmore, Chennai 600 008

2. The Commissioner Tambaram Corporation No.28, Muthuranga Mudali Street Tambaram West Tambaram Chennai 600 045

S.S.SUNDAR,J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

ss 29.02.2024