Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


S.K. Venkatachalam v. Coimbatore Corporation rep. by2. A. Lourdhusamy:: - W.P. No.14327 OF 1995 [2002] RD-TN 554 (2 August 2002)


Dated: 02/08/2002


The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR

W.P. No.14327 OF 1995

1. S.K. Venkatachalam

2. M.V. Meenakshi :: Petitioners -Vs-

1. Coimbatore Corporation rep. by

its Commissioner, Coimbatore

2. A. Lourdhusamy :: Respondents Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari as stated in the petition For Petitioners :: Mr. T. Gowthaman

For Respondents :: Mr. R. Sivakumar


Petitioners herein had purchased 6 cents of land in T.S.No.195 S. No.11/1278 from the 2nd respondent herein who probably represented to them that it was a house-site in an approved lay-out. Petitioners claim to have submitted a plan to the 1st respondent Corporation for approval on 10-3-1995. Petitioners presumed that the plan was sanctioned as no reply was received by them from the Corporation for sixty days. Petitioners, therefore, constructed a house on the site purchased by them. While the construction was going on, it seems that an order came to be passed by the Commissioner of the 1st respondent Corporation on 21-7-1995 whereby the petitioners were asked to stop the construction work. It seems that the petitioners did not pay any heed to that and completed the construction and, therefore, ultimately an order came to be passed on 15-9-1995 calling upon them to demolish the construction which they had put.

2. Petitioners suggest that since there are no violations of the Building Rules of the Corporation and the construction put up by them is strictly in accordance with law, there would be no necessity to demolish the same and that the Corporation is acting in an arbitrary manner.

3. The Corporation has come up with a specific counter. In that counter, the Corporation points out that this site was specifically reserved for public purpose, viz. “for a public park and well”. The Corporation further asserts in its counter that the construction was completed without any sanctioned plan and was thus an unauthorised construction on the unapproved lay-out. The Corporation further pointed out that at no point of time was ever any application made by the petitioners as claimed in the petition. In fact, it is claimed that the land allegedly purchased by the petitioners was earmarked for a public purpose as per the approved lay-out in LP/R(CN) 22/83 and that even the 2nd respondent from whom the petitioners purchased the land had no right to sell the same. It is further pointed out that there was never any application given by the petitioners, much less on 10-3 -19 95. It is further pointed out that while the construction was in progress, petitioners were served with a preliminary notice to stop the construction forthwith and since the petitioners ignored the said notice and completed the construction, a final notice of demolition was served on the petitioners vide Roc No.79695/95/H5 dated 5-10-1995. Therefore, it is pointed out by the Corporation that way back in the year 1995 itself, the petitioners’ claim that they had filed an application for getting their plan sanctioned is completely incorrect factually.

4. It is only today when the matter was progressing in this Court that an affidavit came to be handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioners in which the learned counsel says that the Corporation never accepts the application across the counter and never issue any acknowledgment therefor and that there is a box kept in front of the Corporation premises and all the applications for sanction, etc. are supposed to be dropped in that box and that is how the applications are made. Then it is suggested that the petitioners had paid the tax, etc. which were levied on their construction on 4-10-1995. Learned counsel, therefore, says that the petitioners were well within their right to proceed with the construction.

5. Considering the rival submissions, it must be held that the petitioners have practically filed nothing to suggest that they they had actually received the permission from the Corporation. The story of the application having been put in a box kept in front of the Corporation appears to be a myth and can never be accepted particularly in view of the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the Corporation who has specifically deposed that there was no application ever received from the petitioners. Petitioners also do not assert that they had paid any fees, etc. along with the application which is a must under the rules. Merely by dropping the application in some box, the petitioners cannot take the advantage of the “deeming provision” in the Act of the application remaining unanswered for sixty days and thereby the application being granted. Even the fact remains that the Corporation had given the notice to the petitioners right when the construction was in progress. However, it is obvious that the petitioners did not pay any heed to that and chose to proceed with the construction. Now if the building is to be pulled down then it is only the petitioners who should be blamed for that because the petitioners even at this stage have not asserted that the house is standing on the approved lay-out. There is no denial to the assertion that the site on which the house is standing is reserved for a public purpose. In that view, the petition has no merits. The petition is dismissed. However, before parting with, it must be observed that the Corporation shall take all such steps as it is required to take in law before demolishing the house. No costs. Connected W.M.P.No.22790 of 1995 is closed. Index:Yes






Corporation of Coimbatore,



W.P. 14327 of 1995.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.