Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Ms Justice R.N. MANJULA
ANNA NAGAR WESTERN EXTENSION – Appellant
Versus
ZONAL OFFICER – Respondent
Library - Public Use - Society Registration Act - Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 - The court observed that public utility areas were reserved for community use, and the municipality's eviction order was quashed for not considering public interest and convenience, directing constructive dialogue for smoother resolutions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered society for local residents, sought to maintain a building originally permitted for a library but faced eviction orders from the municipality alleging violations regarding its use for community activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eviction notice unjustified as the municipality failed to address the public's needs or engage in dialogue with the petitioner, ultimately deciding in favor of the association and quashing the eviction order.
Issues: Whether the municipality's eviction order against the petitioner was valid and justified given the circumstances surrounding the use of the property for community purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The municipality's actions did not reflect a reasonable approach towards public welfare and failed to engage constructively with the residents, violating principles of public interest and community service.
Final Decision: The eviction order was quashed, and the municipality was directed to reconsider the appeal from the petitioner.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S.Ragul Adhithya, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent issued by the first respondent dated 21.02.2024 in Z.O.VII.C.No.8253/2023 and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to utilize the said area for library and other purposes as per the existing practice.
3. The petitioner is an association represented by its Secretary. The Association is founded for the welfare of the residents of the Anna Nagar Western Extension and registered as a Society under the Society Registration Act in Reg.No.69 of 1976. At the time the Housing Board developed Anna Nagar Housing Board, Plot No.13-B of the lay-out was ear-marked for Municipal Park for public purpose. However, through a letter dated 01.07.1991, the then Ambattur Municipal Commissioner has given permission to the petitioner association to utilize an extent of 801 sq.ft. in the plot reserved for Municipal Park for the purpose of building a public library and reading room with its own funds and maintain the same.
4. Accordingly, the building was raised and it was used for library and reading purpose. The petitioner's association has raised the ground floor and first floor in the said plot for keeping a library along with reading room.
5. The library was taken up by the District Library Office and is being maintained properly. There is no issue with regard to the usage of library. However, the objection from the first respondent is in connection with the usage of the first floor. It is alleged by the first respondent that the petitioner association has made a temporary extension by putting up a shed and it was being used for the purpose of conducting Yoga, music and dance classes for the children of the neighbourhood and for holding small functions of the residents.
6. This was being objected by the first respondent and a notice has been issued on 08.04.2022. The same was challenged by the petitioner's association by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1107 of 2022. In the said writ petition, an order has been passed by giving a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders. Subsequently, the first respondent has passed an order on 11.10.2023 stating that the place is required for setting up a Health and Wellness Centre and that the petitioner's association had violated the conditions imposed in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9959/95/F2 dated 30.08.1995.
7. It is further stated in the order that the municipality has taken possession of the building. When the authorities are directed to pass an order on the representation of the petitioner in the light of the earlier notice dated 08.04.2022, the scope of the order ought to have been restricted only to that notice. But the first respondent has passed an order that he had taken possession of the property.
8. In the earlier notice dated 08.04.2022 a demand has been made by the first respondent to hand over possession but in the order dated 30.08.1995, which was passed in response to the representation made by the petitioner, the first respondent has taken an unusual leap and passed an order that the process of taking possession has also been completed. It is learnt that the premises has been kept under lock and seal by the first respondent, even while things of the petitioner’s association are inside.
9. Now an eviction order has been issued on 21.02.2024 by directing the petitioner to remove the belongings kept inside the building. It is difficult to comprehend an eviction following the alleged taking over possession. Recovery of possession through legal means would only follow eviction and it will not precede eviction. Even for an order for lock and seal due to any violations of conditions the authority concerned is expected to follow the mandamus issued by the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
