Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Surender, JJ
K.Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Respondent
W.P.No.5141 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.5655 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Suresh
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel [TNHB] [R1], Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader [R2]
Natural justice mandates opportunity to be heard before enforcing removal of unauthorized construction on disputed land.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Housing Board under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, claiming lapsed land acquisition and unauthorized construction removal order without hearing. Facts involve possession prior to acquisition in Survey No.60/5 at Salamedu Village. Court directed submission of explanation and consideration thereof before enforcement. Issue framed as whether opportunity to defend was afforded against unauthorized construction allegation. Ratio decidendi emphasizes natural justice requiring hearing before adverse action, granting liberty to submit documents for competent authority's consideration. Writ petition disposed of with directions to consider explanation within three weeks; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to unauthorized construction notice without hearing (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. directions for explanation and possession consideration (Para 3 , 4) |
Order
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.] The notice issued by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Villupuram Housing Board vide proceedings dated 07.02.2024 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Housing Board has directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of building on or before 28.02.2024 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case.
3. In view of the said submission, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation along with documents, if any regarding the allegation of unauthorized construction to the 1st respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the authorities competent shall consider the same and thereafter take a final decision before proceeding further with the enforcement action.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was in possession even prior to the acquisition made by the Government.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
