A.M.P.A.Palaniappan, v. The Commissioner
DATED: 17.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N.MALA Mr.A.M.P.A.Palaniappan, S/o.A.M.P. Arunachalam, Office at Ampa Sky One, Door No.1, Nelson Manickam Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2.The Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation (Zone-8), No.36B, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.
...Respondents
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 19.04.2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court and pass such further orders. For Petitioner:
Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondents:
Mr.E.C.Ramesh, Standing Counsel 1/5
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.04.2025.
2. The petitioner is the lawful owner of land situated at Block No.3, New Town Survey No.5, Old Survey Nos.14/1 and 14/7 in Vada Agaram Village, Aminjikarai Taluk, Chennai, inherited through partition deeds dated 27.02.1967 and 03.06.1971 from his grandfather, Mr.A.M.Palaniappa Chettiar. The property stands in Patta No.108 dated 11.07.1962. A rainwater drainage channel measuring 14 metres in breadth and 54.7 metres in length (totaling 7755 sq.ft.) was constructed by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents on the petitioner's land without any notice, consent, or acquisition proceedings. The petitioner came to know of the encroachment only during a recent survey of the land. Despite a representation dated 19.04.2025, there has been no response or action from the respondents.
2/5
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the act of the st and 2 nd Respondents in laying a drainage channel on his private property without acquiring the land or paying compensation amounts to an illegal encroachment and a violation of his fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution. He argues that no show cause notice or hearing opportunity was provided, violating the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of audi alteram partem. He further submits that the classification of part of his land as government poramboke is erroneous and he reserves the right to challenge it separately. Despite multiple oral and written representations, the authorities have failed to act, forcing the petitioner to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 19.04.2025 would be considered on merits, in accordance with law, within a time frame stipulated by this Court. 3/5
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Without going into the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.04.2025 after conducting a detailed enquiry and surveying the petitioner's land by giving due notice to him, affording an opportunity of personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and direction. No costs.
17.06.2025 dpq/cda Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order N.MALA, J.
4/5
dpq/cda To 1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2.The Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation (Zone-8), No.36B, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.
17.06.2025 5/5