Deivanai, v. The Zonal Officer,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.01.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Writ Petition No.31305 of 2019 and WMP No.31459 of 2019 Mrs.Deivanai ....

Petitioner -Vs1.The Zonal Officer Zone-IV, Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai 600 021.

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass order in petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2019 within a stipulated period of time proper in the circumstance of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikannan For Respondents : M/s.A.C.Manibharathi (GCC) Standing Counsel 1 / 5

O R D E R

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to pass orders on a representation dated 04.11.2019. 2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property in RS.No.1847/8 part measuring 9600 sq.ft, situated at Door No19, Lime Klin Road, Anna Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai 600 021. The property belonged to the Corporation of Chennai and leased out to the husband of the writ petitioner. It had been contended that the husband was in possession. Thereafter, it had been stated that the petitioner had been in continous possession of the building. The husband had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 17.08.1983. The 1st respondent had issued a notice on 03.10.2019 to the President of the Chennai Lime Merchant Association at Korukkepettai, directing handing over of the possession of the propertu within a period of 10 days. The petitioner had given a representation questioning such notice. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

2 / 5

3.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents raised serious objections on the maintainability of the writ petition itself. According to the learned counsel, the husband of the petitioner was not the lessee of the property. The lessee of the property was the Chennai Lime Merchant Association at Korukkepettai. It had been stated that this representation given by the petitioner had been considered and final orders had been passed rejecting the representation and that the petitioner had vacated the premises on 10.12.2020 and that the respondents had taken possession. Nothing survives for adjudication. 4.The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.01.2025 Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP To 1.The Zonal Officer Zone-IV, Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai 600 021.

2.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai 3 / 5

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.,J KP Writ Petition No.31305 of 2019 4 / 5

03.01.2025 5 / 5