Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Lakshmi vs The Corporation Of Chennai on 3 December, 2020

Author: M.Sathyanarayanan

Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan

                                                                                   WP.No.17020/2020

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED 03.12.2020

                                                     CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

                                                       AND

                             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

                                   WP.No.17020/2020 & WMP.No.21105/2020

                      R.Lakshmi                                               ..     Petitioner

                                                      Versus

                      1.The Corporation of Chennai
                        rep.by its Commissioner
                        Corporation of Chennai.
                        Rippon Buildings
                        Chennai 600 003.

                      2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner [Central]
                        No.36-B 2nd Cross Street, Pulla Avenue
                        Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030.

                      3.The Zonal Officer
                        zone-7 [Ambattur]
                        Corporation of Chennai
                        No.536, Chennai-Tiruvallur Highway
                        Ambattur, Chennai 600053.                             .. Respondents

                      Prayer:-    Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                      India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the
                      proceedings relating to the impugned notice dated 01.10.2020 made in

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                         1
                                                                                     WP.No.17020/2020

                      Z.O.VII.C.No.2772/2020 issued u/s.220 read with 222 of the Chennai
                      City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, on the file of the 3 rd respondent
                      and quash the same.

                                    For Petitioner     :         Mr.A.K.Sriram for Mr.V.Rajesh

                                    For Respondents :            Mr.K.Raja Srinivas
                                                                 Standing counsel for RR1 to 3


                                                           ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] (1) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

(2)Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3)The petitioner and her husband claims to be in possession of the land and superstructure at Old Dor No.56, New Door No.25A, New Street, Karukku, Ambattur, Chennai-53 and they are residing in the said property over 45 years and it is also assessed to statutory levies and patta has also been issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk.

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recognising http://www.judis.nic.in 2 WP.No.17020/2020 the possession and occupation apart from levying statutory levies upon the land and superstructure, they have been issued with voter ID Cards, Aadhar Cards and the benevolence of the Government in the form of freebies have been extended to them from time to time. (5)The primordial submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned notice under Section 220 read with 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Act, 1919. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said notice is not preceded by any show cause notice and if semblance of opportunity would have been provided, the petitioner would have established the fact of her long possession and enjoyment as well as recognition of her rights and hence, prays for appropriate orders. (6) Per contra, Mr.K.Raja Srinivas, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions, would submit that since the impugned notice came to be issued by resorting to due process of law, the petitioner cannot express any grievance and prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

(7)This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 WP.No.17020/2020 materials placed before it.

(8)It is relevant to extract Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Act, 1919:-

222. Removal of encroachments.—(1) The commissioner may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar, or groundfloor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or, over, any street 1 [or any public place, the control of which is vested in the corporation].

(2) If the owner of occupier of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give him a perspective title 2 [or where such period is less than thirty years, for a period of thirty years] or that it was erected with the consent of any municipal authority duly empowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any, for which the consent is valid has not expired, the corporation shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same.'' (9)Sub-section [2] of Section 222 of the said Act, provides a window in the form of an opportunity to the owner or the occupier to remove the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 WP.No.17020/2020 existence in terms of obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give him a perspective title. In the light of the said provision, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation / response by enclosing relevant and authenticated documents to the 3rd respondent within a period of two weeks from today and upon receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the said representation objectively and also on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a further period of six weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner and till such time, shall defer further action in terms of the impugned notice dated 01.10.2020. (10)The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                              [MSNJ]      [RHJ]
                                                                                 03.12.2020
                      AP
                      Internet:Yes




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                            5
                                                                     WP.No.17020/2020



                      To

                      1.The Corporation of Chennai
                        rep.by its Commissioner
                        Corporation of Chennai.
                        Rippon Buildings
                        Chennai 600 003.

2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner [Central] No.36-B 2nd Cross Street, Pulla Avenue Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030.

3.The Zonal Officer Zone-7 [Ambattur] Corporation of Chennai No.536, Chennai-Tiruvallur Highway Ambattur, Chennai 600053.

http://www.judis.nic.in 6 WP.No.17020/2020 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND R.HEMALATHA, J., AP WP.No.17020/2020 03.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 7