SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 97993

MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.R.Sree Ranjini – Appellant
Versus
The commissioner – Respondent
WP/34757/2022



Unauthorized construction in a common passage obstructing ingress and egress can be subject to demolition.

Headnote:

UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - DEMOLITION - COMMON PASSAGE - [The court directed the respondents to inspect the property in question within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioner and 3rd respondent and if there any unauthorized shed is put up in the common pathway, take immediate action in accordance with law against the 3rd respondent and others, if any.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to demolish the unauthorized construction of a shed put up in the common passage running from east to west on the northern side, obstructing the ingress and egress to his land.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondents to inspect the property in question within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after issuing notice to the petitioner and 3rd respondent and if there any unauthorized shed is put up in the common pathway, take immediate action in accordance with law against the 3rd respondent and others, if any.

Issues: Whether the unauthorized construction of a shed in the common passage obstructed the ingress and egress to the petitioner's land?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there is any unauthorized shed put up in the common pathway, the respondents should take immediate action in accordance with law against the 3rd respondent and others, if any.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the respondents to inspect the property in question and take appropriate action if any unauthorized construction is found.

W.P.No.34757 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

and

THE HONOURABLE

MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

W.P.No.34757 of 2022

P.R.Sree Ranjini

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

Chennai Greater City Corporation,

Ripon Building, Chennai.

2.Executive Engineer,

Chennai Corporation (Zone-6),

Ayanavaram,

Chennai – 600 023.

3.Karunamuruthi

.. Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the

Respondents 1 & 2 to demolish the unauthorized construction of shed put

up in the common passage running from the east to west on the northern

side obstructing the ingress and egress to the petitioner's land situated at

Door No.104/152, Meetu Street, comprised in Paimash No.980 T.S.No.84

in Block No.28 within Ayanavaram Village, Chennai – 600 023 based on

the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2022 to the respondents 1 & 2.

1/5

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

W.P.No.34757 of 2022

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Balakrishnan

for Ms.D.Sri Devi

For RR 1 & 2

: Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)

The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition for a

direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to demolish the unauthorized

construction of shed put up in the common passage running from east to

west on the northern side, obstructing the ingress and egress to his land

situated at Door No.104/152, Mettu Street, comprised in Paimash

No.980, T.S.No.84 in Block No.28 within Ayanavaram Village, Chennai –

600 023, based on his representation dated 14.12.2022 to the

respondents 1 & 2.

2.By consent of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well

as Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the

respondents 1 & 2, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the

admission stage itself.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and

2/5

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

W.P.No.34757 of 2022

perused the entire materials on record.

4.According to petitioner, he is the owner of the property situated

in Paimash No.980, T.S.No.84 in Block No.28, within Ayanavaram

Village, Chennai to an extent of 2475 sq.ft. He having purchased the

same from one R.Natarajan Naicker, by way of sale deed dated

11.12.2004 along with a common pathway to reach the said property.

While so, the 3rd respondent along with grand daughter of the vendor had

constructed a shed in the common pathway obstructing the ingress and

egress of the petitioner's property. The 3rd respondent constructed the

shed in the common pathway without obtaining any planning permission

and approval from the respondents 1 & 2. Hence, the petitioner has sent a

representation dated 14.12.2022 to the respondents 1 & 2. Since the

respondents 1 & 2 have not taken any action on the said representation,

the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition.

5.Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner and

the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the

respondents 1 & 2 are directed to inspect the property in question within

a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

3/5

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

W.P.No.34757 of 2022

after issuing notice to the petitioner and 3rd respondent and if there any

unauthorized shed is put up in the common pathway, take immediate

action in accordance with law against the 3rd respondent and others, if

any.

6.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

(V.M.V., J) (R.H., J)

03.01.2023

krk

Index

: Yes / No

Internet

: Yes / No

To

1.The Commissioner,

Chennai Greater City Corporation,

Ripon Bu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top