BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.(MD)Nos.672 & 673 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4947 and 4949 of 2024 V.Neduncheliyan ... Appellants in both W.As.

-Vs-

The Commissioner, Karur City Municipal Corporation, Corporation Office, Karur. ... Respondent in both W.As.

COMMON PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 28.02.2024 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4336 &

2813 of 2024 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.D.Nallathambi For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Standing Counsel (in both W.As.)

COMMON JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

The appellant is the writ petitioner, who moved the present Writ Appeals against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 28.02.2024 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4336 and 2813 of 2024.

2.The petitioner / appellant had been given licence by way of ground rent of 60 sq.ft., land belongs to the respondent Municipal Corporation.

3.The petitioner / appellant's case was that he had put up construction in

60 sq.ft., allotted to him and he had been paying ground rent properly. Despite that without any notice under Rule 302 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the respondent Municipal Corporation suddenly came and demolished the said construction and in this regard, when an order was passed prior to the demolition on 16.02.2024, that was challenged before the Writ Court in the said Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.4336 of 2024 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge through the impugned order dated 28.02.2024. Against which, the present Writ Appeals have been filed.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that after the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, the entire building has been demolished without even giving time for the petitioner / appellant to move these Writ Appeals.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the point that if at all any contraventions of the lease conditions or licence conditions, for which, if the respondent Municipal Corporation wants to cancel the licence, that should have been made by the respondent Municipal Corporation only after issuing notice and by giving opportunity of being heard under Rule 302 of the Rules. However, admittedly, without having issued any such notice, straightaway, the said order dated 16.02.2024 had been issued. When that was questioned, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the said position. However, the learned Single Judge without considering the said legal position since has dismissed the said Writ Petition by citing some other reason, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, he contended.

6.However, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, on written instructions given by the respondent Municipal Corporation, has submitted that only for 60 sq.ft., alone licence has been given to the petitioner / appellant on ground rent basis and instead of 60 sq.ft., he had occupied further 100 sq.ft., where he had put up construction and let it for sub-lease. Therefore, it is clearly violation of the licence conditions, which warranted for cancellation of the licence. Therefore, such an order dated 16.02.2024 was issued by the respondent Municipal Corporation. When it was questioned, the learned Single Judge did not entertain the Writ Petition and has dismissed the same. Therefore, following the said legal proceedings, the respondent Municipal Corporation proceeded to demolish such construction put up by the petitioner / appellant both in 60 sq.ft., licensed area as well as 100 sq.ft., occupied area.

7.Though it has been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner / appellant has violated the licence conditions by encroaching upon 100 sq.ft., more than of the 60 sq.ft., allotted to him, it is b