Motchamary vs The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Motchamary – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul. – Respondent
Writ Petition

Important Points

Court directs preference in auction and alternative shop to long-term tenant post-demolition for reconstruction.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Constitution of India: S.226

Headnote

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner sought mandamus to prevent interference with tenancy rights without due process. Petitioner held possession of shop for 40 years under licence valid until March 2027, but shops demolished due to dilapidated condition for new complex construction via public auction. Court noted respondent's assurance of preference in auction and alternative accommodation. Issue framed as protection of possession pending due process, with reasoning that demolition occurred without procedure but new allotment planned. Court accepted submission for auction preference, emphasizing consideration of application for temporary shop. Writ petition disposed with directions for preference in auction if petitioner participates and consideration of alternative shop application within two weeks.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Manikandan
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Lawrence Standing Counsel for R1, Mr.S.S.Madhavan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R2 and R3

Table of Content
1. petition seeks protection of tenant possession. (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to forbear from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the shop as a tenant, except in accordance with due process of law.

2.The petitioner claims to have been in possession of the shop for the past 40 years and states that the licence granted in his favour is valid up to March 2027. It is his grievance that, without following due process of law, the respondents have demolished the shops. 3.The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submitted that the shops allotted to the petitioner and others in the Fish Market were demolished on the ground that they were in a dilapidated condition, and that a new complex is proposed to be constructed for allotment of shops through a public auction. It was further submitted that preference would be given to the petitioner, in the event he participates in the auction for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex.

4.The said submission is placed on record.

5.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give due preference to the petitioner, in the event he participates in the auction to be conducted for allotment of shops in the new Fish Market Complex. The respondents are also directed to consider providing an alternative shop to the petitioner in the temporary Fish Market area, if the petitioner makes an application in this regard. Upon receipt of such application, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) weeks. No costs.