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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ
K.Raja – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman – Respondent
WP No. 24718 of 2023|WMP Nos. 24152 and 24153 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Muthukumar
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Nedunchezhiyan for R1 R2

Writ challenging Ombudsman order premature without enforcement notice to non-party; due process mandatory for encroachment removal.

Headnote:First Paragraph: The impugned order was passed by the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman under relevant statutes governing local bodies, directing removal of encroachment based on an appeal. Essential facts involve a sunshade construction challenged as encroachment, though the writ petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings. The court found the writ petition premature as no enforcement notice had been issued to the petitioner. Second Paragraph: Key issue framed as whether enforcement action could proceed without notice to a non-party. Ratio decidendi holds that removal of encroachments requires notice and opportunity to be heard under applicable statutes, and actions based on Ombudsman orders must follow due process. Third Paragraph: Writ petition dismissed as premature; petitioner at liberty to defend upon issuance of notice.

Table of Content
1. challenges ombudsman order threatening demolition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner not party to original proceedings. (Para 3)
3. encroachment removal requires prior notice. (Para 4)

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order No.

149/Na./ 2023 dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the order impugned, the Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality is orally threatening the petitioner for demolition of sunshade constructed in front of the house of the petitioner.

3. A perusal of the order impugned would show that one Mr.G.Marimuthu filed an appeal before the Ombudsman against the Commissioner, Nagapattinam Municipality and the petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings. However, the Ombudsman issued a direction for removal of the encroachment. Since the petitioner is not a party in the proceedings before the Ombudsman any enforcement action if proposed, it is to be initiated only by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant stature and Rules in force.

4. For removal of encroachment, the competent Authority should issue notice to the encroacher affording opportunity to defend his case. As of now there is no such enforcement action commenced. Since the petitioner is not a party to the Ombudsman proceedings and enforcement actions have not been commenced, the present Writ Petition is pre-mature. Based on the apprehension, the Writ Petition appears to be filed. Thus, in the even of issuance of notice by the competent Authority based on the order passed by the Ombudsman, the petitioner is at liberty to defend his case in the manner known to law.

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top