CRP No.9 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.07.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

CRP No.9 of 2016

and CMP No.17 o 2016

C.H.S.Gopi

... Petitioner

Vs

1. Thiruvottiyur Nagara Vanniyarkula Shakthiriyar Trust

Represented by its Trustees

1. V.M.Gajapathy

2. R.Murugesan

3. Panneerdoss

4. S.Egambaram

5. R.Dakshinamoorthy

6. V.V.Arasu

7. V.Gnanasekar

8. R. Bhoopathy

9. T.M.Senthil

10.M. Mani

11.S.Parthiban

12.P.Jeyakumar

13.Aeegounder

14.G.Sankar

15.N.Dilli

2. The Commissioner,

Chennai corporation,

Rippon Building,

P.H.Road, George Town, Chennai-600 003.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.9 of 2016

3. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (North),

Chennai Corporation,

Basin Bridge Road,

Chennai-600 079

4. The Executive Engineer,

Zonal Office, Zone-1,

Chennai Corporation,

T.H.Road,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai-600 019

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to strike off the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2015 pending on

the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.Valliappan

Senior Counsel for

Mr.S.M.S.Shriram Narayanan

For Respondents

: Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi

Senior Counsel for

Mr.L.Palanimuthu

For R.1

Mr.B.B.Senthil Kumar

For R.2 to R.4

ORDER

The suit in O.S.No.3 of 215 is the subject matter of the present

revision.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.9 of 2016

2. The proceeding relates to an unauthorised construction put up by

the first respondent. Originally, W.P.No.12056 of 2014 was presented

before this Court, seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the state

authorities to take enforcement action/demolish the superstructure put up in

an unauthorised manner by the plaintiffs herein. The writ petition was filed

by the civil revision petitioner and this Court by order dated 25.10.2013

passed the following order:-

“ . 4. We are not inclined to go into the question of

the construction put up by the petitioner is

unautorised or not. It is only the allegations made

by the respondents 5 to 8 in their counter affidavit.

We are of the view that if there is any violation of

building rules resulting in unauthorised

construction, it is well open to the authorities to

take appropriate action against such persons. The

records would show that stop work notice has

already been issued by the Corporation of

Chennai followed by the notice proposed to lock

the premises. It is also brought to notice that the

respondents 5 to 8 have given fresh application to

the Corporation of Chennai seeking planning

permission.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.9 of 2016

5. Considering the above said fact, we deem it

appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to

conduct enquiry on the representation made by the

petitioner Visa Vis the application seeking

permission given by the respondents 5 to 8 and

pass appropriate orders on merit and in

accordance with law, within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.”

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the authorities had issued a

lock and seal notice, which was challenged by the plaintiffs before this

Court. When the matter came up for admission on 24.06.2014, learned

counsel for the writ petitioners(plaintiffs herein) withdrew the writ petition

on the ground that statutory remedy is available as against the lock and

seal.

4. Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned Senior counsel would submit that

instead of going for an appeal, they moved application for regularisation of

the building. In other words, the order of the lock and seal issue, which was

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.9 of 2016

the subject matter of challenge before this Court, has become final.

Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2015 has been presented before the

District Munsif, Thir