WP/34063/2017 of N.Sathyamorthy, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, on 28 December 2017

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Greater Chennai Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3.

3. The Executive Engineer, Zone V, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-21. ...Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing thesecond and third respondents from in any way interfering withthe petitioner's premises at No.117/54, St. Xavier Street, SevenWells, Chennai-1, more particularly by way of locking andsealing and demolition of the same, pending final determinationof the petitioner's special revision petition and stay petitiondated 26.9.2017 filed under Sections 80-A and 80-A(3) of theTamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, with the firstrespondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.ChandrakumarFor Respondent-1 : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, SGPFor Respondents 2 & 3 :Mr.A.Nagarajan

Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,JMr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader acceptsnotice for the first respondent. Mr.A.Nagarajan, learnedStanding Counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitionerseeking to forbear respondents 2 and 3 from in any wayinterfering with the petitioner's premises at No.117/54,St.Xavier Street, Seven Wells, Chennai-1, more particularly byway of locking and sealing and demolition of the same, pendingfinal determination of the petitioner's special revisionpetition and stay petition dated 26.9.2017 filed under Sections80-A and 80-A(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Actwith the first respondent.

3. It stated by the petitioner that he is the owner of thesubject property. He got the said property by way of a saledated 20.5.2013. According to the petitioner, he let out someportions in the property in question. While so, the thirdrespondent issued a stop work notice to the petitioner callingfor approved plan. The petitioner furnished all the documentspertaining to the property in question including the planapproval from the Corporation of Chennai. Again, on 10.6.2016,the third respondent issued locking and sealing notice to thepetitioner and the deoccupation notice dated 21.8.2017 to thetenants of the petitioner. Immediately, the petitionerapproached the first respondent by filing a special revisionpetition under Section 80(A) of the Tamil Nadu town and CountryPlanning Act and a stay application under Section 80(A)(3) ofthe Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act on 26.9.2017 andthe same are still pending. Apprehending that the respondentswould initiate coercive action, the petitioner has come forwardwith the above writ petition.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wedirect the first respondent to consider the revision and thestay petition filed by the petitioner on 26.9.2017 and passappropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law afteraffording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, withinthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Till the disposal of the revision, no coercive steps shall betaken by the respondent authorities.

5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-Vacation Officer

//True copy//

RS

Sub Assistant Registrar

To

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,Housing & UrbanDevelopment Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, RipponBuildings,Buildings, Chennai-3.

3. The Executive Engineer, Zone V, Greater Chennai Corporation,No.61,No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-21.

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, Advocate SR.No.92600

+1cc to Mr.A.Nagarajan, Advocate SR.No.92619+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.92667

WP.No.34063 of 2017&

WMP.No.37797 of 2017

KAN(CO)GN(02/01/2018)