Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3408
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
A.T. Ganapathi
Versus
The Collector, Cuddalore District & Others
W.P. No. 10416 of 2010 in M.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 2010
Decided On : 12-08-2010
For the Petitioner:R. Gururaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 - Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate, R4 - R. Neelakandan, R5Lakshminarayanan, Advocates.
The court established that the fourth respondent had the authority to take action against unauthorized construction and encroachments under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
Headnote:
Encroachment - Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Sections 199, 209, 313, 317, 216, 180, 162, 167 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the notice directing the petitioner to remove unauthorized construction and restrain the respondents from demolishing any construction. The court held that the fourth respondent had the power to demolish unauthorized construction under Section 216 of the Act and to remove encroachments under Section 182. The petitioner's encroachment on the public path was found to be in contravention of Section 167 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a vacant site and filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. The suit was decreed ex-parte, and the petitioner proceeded with construction without obtaining permission. The respondents issued notices directing the petitioner to remove unauthorized construction and encroachment on a public path.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had put up substantial construction without permission and encroached on a public path. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of oral permission and deemed permission under the Act. The court held that the fourth respondent had the power to demolish unauthorized construction and remove encroachments.
Issues: Unauthorized construction, encroachment on public path, power of the fourth respondent to issue notices and take action under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fourth respondent had the power to demolish unauthorized construction under Section 216 of the Act and to remove encroachments under Section 182. The petitioner's encroachment on the public path was found to be in contravention of Section 167 of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs.20,000.
1. The petitioner had purchased a vacant site from one Selvaraj by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2007. The vacant site in S.No.353/1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 12 is at Kottai Madil Street, (Buddha Street), Pennadam Town, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. As per the sale deed, the land measures east-west 37 ½ feet and north-south 75 feet. In the sale deed, it is mentioned that there was a pathway and according to the petitioner, it was mistakenly mentioned in the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the revenue records also show wrong entries.
2. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 2007 before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi, praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of B schedule property. B schedule property is 9 ft east-west and 75 ft north-south in the A schedule property, that measures 37 ½ ft east-west and 75 ft north-south. There is also another prayer of mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to rectify the revenue records relating to suit B schedule property by removing the entry as Panchayat road or land and to show it as petitioners private property.
3. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on 21.10.2009 to the fourth respondent seeking permission to construct a building in the entire extent of the aforesaid land. The fourth respondent returned the said application stating that an interim application to set aside the ex-parte decree was filed and the same is pending and therefore, the application seeking permission to commence the work could not be granted.
4. As the fourth respondent returned the application, the petitioner filed an appeal on 26.11.2009 to the first respondent presuming that the first respondent is the Appellate Authority. The first respondent failed to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.681 of 2010 before this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to dispose the appeal. This Court passed an order directing the first respondent to pass orders on the appeal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. The first respondent passed an order on 13.04.2010 remanding the matter to the fourth respondent and the petitioner was directed to approach the fourth respondent.
5. According to the petitioner, the order of the first respondent is illegal. Being a statutory authority, the first respondent should have signed the order but the order did not have the signature. Further, it is stated that the first respondent ought not to have delegated his work to the fourth respondent, his subordinate. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order is null and void.
6. The petitioner further states that the fourth and fifth respondents along with a band of people had demolished the compound wall put up by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner was attacked by hooligans on 06.03.2010 causing grievous injuries.
7. Based on the order of the first respondent dated 13.04.2010, the fourth respondent sent a notice dated 20.04.2010 informing the petitioner that the blue print submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the F.M.B. sketch and that the street and other buildings around the site were also not noted. The fourth respondent directed the petitioner to rectify the defects and to resubmit the same.
8. The petitioner states that based on the oral permission given by the first respondent, he put up some construction.
9. The fourth respondent issued a notice dated 21.04.2010 under Sections 199, 209 and 317(A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the petitioner not to proceed with the construction, since no permission was granted for construction.
10. Further, the fourt
