BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24/09/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Writ Petition (MD) No.2998 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008
S.Kamala .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Karaikudi Municipality,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Registrar of
Co-operative Societies (Housing),
Chennai - 20.
3.C.Anbu Thilagam .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 9.7.2007 and initiate necessary action against
unauthorised construction in the petitioner Plot No.S-57, Soodamanipuram Layout
in T.S.No.429pt Karaikudi Town.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
^For 1st respondent ... Ms.S.Srimathi
For 2nd respondent ... Mr.K.Balasubramanian,
Addl.Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI, J)
The Writ Petition is for a direction against the first respondent to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9.7.2007.
2. A reference to the representation shows that the complaint of the
petitioner is against the conduct of the third respondent in putting up
construction in Plot No.57, Soodamanipuram Lay Out in TS No.429, Karaikudi Town,
which is claimed to be belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that
the case of the petitioner is that the third respondent has put up a structure
in the said property, which belongs to her. In that background, she makes a
representation to the first respondent on 9.7.2007 on the ground that the third
respondent has put up the construction without obtaining proper approval and
therefore, the construction is unauthorised.
3. On the face of it, such dispute between the petitioner and the third
respondent cannot be settled by the first respondent. If really, the petitioner
has got any grievance against the unlawful activity of the third respondent in
putting up the construction in her property, it is for her to work out remedy at
the first instance to get possession from the third respondent in the manner
known to law. Without doing so, her approach to consider the representation, in
our view, is an abuse of process of law.
4. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the
petitioner to work out her remedy against the third respondent, the Writ
Petition stands dismissed.
asvm
To
1.The Commissioner,
Karaikudi Municipality,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Registrar of
Co-operative Societies (Housing),
Chennai – 20.