The Regional Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 128 of TNULB Act, as only the Commissioner can exercise this power.

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,]

The protagonist of the captioned main 'Writ Petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has sought issue of a writ of certiorari. To be noted, a notice dated 22.02.2025 bearing reference Z.O.7.C.No.00443/2025 issued by R1 [Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai] has been assailed in the captioned main WP. This '22.02.2025 notice bearing reference Z.O.7.C.No.00443/2025 issued by R1' shall henceforth be referred to as 'impugned notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel instructed by Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner adverting to the impugned notice submitted that the impugned notice has been issued under Section 128 of 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' (hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity), it is wholly without jurisdiction as Section 128 vests only 'Commissioner' with powers to issue notice under Section128.

3. Issue notice.

4. Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned standing counsel accepts notice for R1 and R2 and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R3 to R6.

5. Learned standing counsel for Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) who has accepted notice for R1 and R2 very fairly submitted that Commissioner of GCC has not delegated his powers under Section 128 to R1 and in any event there is no provision under TNULB Act enabling the Commissioner to delegate his powers much less his powers under Section 128 of TNULB Act. This makes the legal drill at hand fairly simple but from the submissions made at the bar, it comes to light that there is a tussle between the writ petitioner and an entity which goes by the name 'Vijayalakshmipuram Thittapaguthi Kudiyurppu Manai Yrimaiyalagal Sangam' (hereinafter 'said Sangam' for the sake of convenience and clarity) and there are as many as six earlier writ petitions all pertaining to such tussle.

6. We are concerned with two parcels of lands and they are: (a)

Survey Nos.150, 152, 153, 108/2, 148 and 154 (hereinafter 'I Parcel of Land' for the sake of convenience and clarity) and (b) Survey numbers presently Town Survey No.127/2 which was previously Survey Nos.168/3E1 and 168/3F1 (hereinafter 'II Parcel of Land' for the sake of convenience and clarity). To be noted, all the aforesaid survey numbers are in Oragadam Village (Block No.43), Ambattur Taluk, Chennai District.

7. This Court is informed that the I and II Parcels of Lands lie adjacent to each other. While writ petitioner alleges that said Sangam has encroached upon I Parcel of Land, which has been classified as bjU (Street), said Sangam alleges that the writ petitioner has encroached upon II Parcel of Land, which is classified as rhiy (Road).

8. As alluded to supra, there are as many as six earlier writ petitions and the details by way of a tabulation is as follows: