G.Babu v. The Additional Secretary(Technical)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.08.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.No.31360 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.35097 of 2025 G.Babu S/o.Govindaraj, Door No.19/49, Thiruvalluvarpuram 2nd Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai- 600 094.

Petitioner Vs 1.The Additional Secretary(Technical) Housing and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Zonal Officer Zone-09, No.1.Lake Area, 4th Cross Street 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit- 24, Greater Chennai Corporation,

4.The Assistant Engineer Division-109, Zone-09, Greater Chennai Corporation, Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 4 from interfering the petitioner's property being land and building bearing Door No.19, Tiruvalluvarpuram, 2nd Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai- 600 094 to an extent of 1169 sq.ft comprised in T.S. No.20 (as per patta T.S.No.20/2), Block No.15, Puliyur Village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai District without any authority of law unless the petitioner's Revision dated 25.04.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent is disposed of.

For Petitioner:

Mr.K.Balaji For Respondents:

Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.A.Arun Babu Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The limited grievance, as ventilated through this petition, is that though stay application filed on 2.5.2025 is pending consideration before the revisional authority, the respondent Corporation is proceeding to de-occupy the premises by issuing notice.

3. Learned State counsel would submit that, though revision petition was filed, stay application was not filed. However, the stay application filed by the petitioner on 2.5.2025 shall be considered and decided within a period of eight weeks.

4. We are of the view that for a period of eight weeks, there should not be any coercive steps towards de-occupation, demolition, lock and seal, etc. and the respondent Corporation should wait for the order that may ultimately be passed in the stay application.

5. The petition, at this stage, is disposed of with a direction that

for a period of eight weeks, the respondent Corporation shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner.

6. The revisional authority shall do well to decide the revision/ application for stay one way or the other within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed by the revisional authority. It is made clear that, if any adjournment is sought by the petitioner, the protective umbrella given shall lose its efficacy.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J) 21.08.2025 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr

To:

1.The Additional Secretary(Technical) Housing and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Zonal Officer Zone-09, No.1.Lake Area, 4th Cross Street 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Unit- 24, Greater Chennai Corporation, 4.The Assistant Engineer Division-109, Zone-09, Greater Chennai Corporation,

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.

bbr W.P.No.31360 of 2025 21.08.2025