E.Chitti Babu v. The Executive Member
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.07.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.P.No.27517 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.30865 of 2025
1. E.Chitti Babu
2. Dhamodaran ... Petitioners -vs1. The Executive Member, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-600 008.
2. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
3. The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Commissioner, Ambattur, Union Panchayat, Ambattur.
5. Saminathan
6. S.Moorthy
7. S.Sathya
8. S.Moorthy ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to 1/4
consider the petitioners' representation dated 30.04.2025 to remove the unauthorized construction and pass suitable orders in the manner known to law.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kamaraj For R1 : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Standing Counsel For R2 to R4 : Mr.M.Venkateswaran Spl. Govt. Pleader *****
O R D E R
(By J.Nisha Banu,J.) This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 30.04.2025 to remove the unauthorized construction and pass suitable orders in the manner known to law.
2. Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R1. Mr.M.Venkateswaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for R1 to R4. Notice to R5 to R8 is dispensed with, as no adverse order is going to be passed against them. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in continuous 2/4
possession and enjoyment of the property and the respondents 5 to 8 have unlawfully constructed a building without any planning permission and also encroached upon a portion of the petitioner's property. Though the petitioners have given a representation dated 30.04.2025 to the official respondents to stop further construction, there was no response from their side. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for R1 stated that the 1st respondent is the competent authority to look into the issue and a reasonable time may be granted to the 1st respondent for considering and taking action on the representation of the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 30.04.2025 of the petitioner, by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to J.NISHA BANU, J.
3/4
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
ar the petitioner and R5 to R8 and thereafter, pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Such an exercise shall be carried out within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (J.N.B.J.,) (M.J.R,J.,) 29.07.2025 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar To:
1. The Executive Member, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-600 008.
2. The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
3. The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Commissioner, Ambattur, Union Panchayat, Ambattur.
4/4