{"id":187680,"date":"2009-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-26T02:47:57","modified_gmt":"2017-04-25T21:17:57","slug":"meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nWrit Petition (MD) Nos.9668 to 9681 of 2009\nWrit Petition (MD) Nos.10150 and 10151 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in WP (MD) Nos.9668 to 9681, 10150 and 10151 of 2009\nand\nContempt Petition (MD)No.174 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in Rev.Aplw(MD)SR Nos.40732 & 40734 of 2009\n\nW.P.(MD)No.9668\/2009:\n\nMeenal, W\/o.Sethuraman\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri, W\/o.V.Lakshmanan\t\t\t... Respondents in WP No.9668\/2009<\/pre>\n
(3rd respondent impleaded as per the order dated
\n30.09.2009 in WP Nos.9668 to 9681 of 2009)<\/p>\n
PRAYER<\/p>\n
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
\nissuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.29\/07\/F2, dated 18.09.2009, issued by the 2nd
\nrespondent and quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9669\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
S.Subramanian\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3. L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in Na.Ka.No.F458\/07 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9670\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
V.Subramanian\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3. L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.37\/07\/F-2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9671\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Fathima Mary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n3. L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t       ..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.24\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9672\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Saratha\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3. L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.   \/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent and
\nquashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9673\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
S.P.Dhakshinamoorthy\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3. L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.26\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9674\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Sornavalli\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.30\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9675\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Valli\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.33\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9676\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
M.Ramu\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.28\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9677\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Vasantha\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.31\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9678\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
P.Thangaraj\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.23\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9679\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Tamilarasi\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.58\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9680\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Muthulakshmi\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3.L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.27\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.9681\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
Muthumari\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n3. L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n(R3 impleaded as per the order\ndated 30\/09\/09 in WP.9668 to 9681\/2009)\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.25\/07\/F2 dated 18.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.10150\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
S.Indira\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n<\/pre>\n
\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in Na.Ka.No.F2\/57\/07 dated 23.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
WP(MD)No.10151\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
N.Tamilrasan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Board of Council,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\n\n2.The Municipal Commissioner,\n  Karaikudi Municipality,\n  Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n<\/pre>\n
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
\nissuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the
\nimpugned Notice in U.A.C.78\/09\/F2 dated 23.9.09, issued by the 2nd respondent
\nand quashing the same.\n<\/p>\n
Contempt Petition 174\/2008 in WP.4563\/06:\n<\/p>\n
L.Gowri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\/Petitioner\n\nVs\n\nMr.S.Kalaiselvan,\nThe Commissioner,\nKaraikudi Municipality,\nKaraikudi.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent\/5th Respondents\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tContempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the contempt of Courts Act
\n1971 to punish the respondent for the contempt for disobeying the order passed
\nby this Hon’ble Court in WP.4563\/06 petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct
\nthe respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to implement the order of the fourth respondent in
\nR.C.No.6983\/0223\/B-1 dated 15\/3\/06 and remove the encroachments in
\nSoodamanipuram layout formed by the second respondent society and obtain final
\napproval of the layout from the fifth respondent Municipality.\n<\/p>\n
MP.1\/09 in Review Application SR.40734\/09:\n<\/p>\n
S.P.Dhakshinamoorthy\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\/Petitioner<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
1.Kamala<\/p>\n
2.The Registrar of Co-operative
\n\t Societies (Housing)
\n22, 4th Main Road,
\nGandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 20.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
\n\tSocieties (Housing),
\nVirudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Special Officer,
\nA-1321, Karaikudi Co-operative
\n\tHouse Building Society,
\nKaraikudi.\n<\/p>\n
5.The District Collector,
\nSivagangai District,
\nSivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
6.The Superintendent of Police,
\nSivagangai District, Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
7. The Commissioner,
\nKaraikudi Municipality,
\nKaraikudi.\n<\/p>\n
8. The Commissioner,
\nMunicipal Administration,
\nChepauk, Chennai \t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\/Respondents<\/p>\n
\tTo grant leave to the petitioner herein to file the above Review
\nApplication against the order dated 19.06.07 in WP.8020\/2006 on the file of this
\nHon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
MP.1\/09 in Review Application SR.40732\/09:\n<\/p>\n
S.P.Dhakshinamoorthy\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\/Petitioner<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
1.L.Gowri<\/p>\n
2.The District Collector,
\nSivagangai District,
\nSivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Special Officer,
\nA-1321, Karaikudi Co-operative
\nHouse Building Society,
\nKaraikudi.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Superintendent of Police,
\nSivagangai District, Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Registrar of Co-operative
\n\tSocieties (Housing)
\n22, 4th Main Road,Gandhi Nagar,
\nAdyar, Chennai – 20.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Commissioner,
\nKaraikudi Municipality,
\nKaraikudi.\n<\/p>\n
7.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
\n\tSocieties (Housing),Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
8.K.R.Lakshmi Narayanan\t\t \t\t\t.. Respondents\/Respondents
\n\tTo grant leave to the petitioner herein to file the above Review
\nApplication against the order dated 19.06.07 in WP(MD)4563\/2006 on the file of
\nthis Hon’ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioners\t\t\t… Mr.G.R.Swamianthan for
\nin all the WPs \t\t\t     \t    M\/s.Right Law Associates.<\/p>\n
\n& MP 1\/2009 in\nReview  Petition SR.No.40732\/09\n\t& 40734\/09\nFor Petitioner in \t\t\t... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\nCont.Petition No.174\/08\nand For 3rd Respondent\t\nin all the WPs except\nWP.Nos.10150 & 10151 of 2009\n^For Respondents-1 and 2\t\t... M\/s.S.Srimathi\nin all the WPs &\nin Contempt Petn.\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
(Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9668 to 9681, 10150 and 10151 of 2009 have
\npreferred these independent writ petitions challenging the Final Notices issued
\nunder Sections 338, 339 read with Section 216(3) of the Tamil Nadu District
\nMunicipalities Act, 1920 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) issued by the
\nMunicipal Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Sivagangai District. The said
\nNotices are issued for removal of unauthorised construction in terms of the
\nnotices already issued under Sections 216(1),(2) & (3) of the Act. The 3rd
\nrespondent in WP(MD)Nos.9668 to 9681 of 2009 is impleaded as a party as per the
\norders of this Court, dated 30.09.2009, made in  W.P.(MD)Nos.9668 to 9681 of
\n2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Contempt Petition (MD)No.174 of 2008 is to punish the Respondent for
\ndisobeying the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2006, dated
\n19.06.2007.  M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in Rev.AplW.(MD)SR Nos.40732 and 40734 of 2009
\nare filed seeking leave of this Court to file Review Applications to review the
\norder of this Court dated 19.06.2007 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.4563 & 8020 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Since the issue involved in these matters is one and the same, a common
\norder is hereby passed. For the purpose of easy reference, the facts in
\nW.P.(MD)No.9668 of 2009 is given below.  It may be noted herein immediately that
\nexcept for the different petitioners, the contentions are one and the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9668 of 2009 one Meenal claims herself as
\nthe absolute owner of the property comprised in T.S.No.1339\/P, Pandikoil
\nBackside in Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. The said petitioner has put up a
\nconstruction therein.  The petitioner claims that this property originally
\nbelonged to Arulmighu Suyamparakeswarar Temple Devasthanam at Illuppakkudi.  The
\npresent notice had been issued to the petitioner to remove the unauthorised
\nconstruction on or before 29.09.2009, failing which the same would be demolished
\nby the authorities.  The petitioner placed her grievances that the said notice
\nhad emanated consequent on the order of this Court, dated 19.06.2007, made in
\nW.P.(MD) 4563\/2006 preferred by the third respondent herein. The petitioner
\nstates that the proceedings issued are in violation of the principles of natural
\njustice as no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner for personal
\nhearing of the grievance of the petitioner.  It is also stated that the
\npetitioner’s husband filed W.P.(MD)No.7982 of2007 challenging the notice, dated
\n15.10.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 216(3) and 205(3) of the
\nAct and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court under Order dated
\n23.12.2008 directing the 2nd respondent to initiate proceedings by complying all
\nthe due process of law.  It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a civil
\nsuit in this regard.  Having regard to the fact that the petitioner in this
\npetition, namely Meenal and other petitioners were not parties to the writ
\nproceedings in W.P.(MD)No.4563\/2006 and 8020 of 2006 by the third respondent and
\nby L.Gowri, the petitioner has filed a petition seeking permission of this Court
\nto file applications to review the order dated 19.6.2009 in W.P.(MD) Nos.4563 of
\n2006 and 8020 of 2006.  The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit,
\nwherein it is contended that Soodamanipuram Layout was originally prepared by a
\nland owner, namely, Illuppukudi Devasthanam, which obtained the approval of the
\nDirector of Town Planning, Madras as early 01.09.1980.  The said Devasthanam
\nexecuted sale of the property within the layout to Karaikudi Cooperative House
\nBuilding Society as early as 4.3.1981 and 6.3.1981.  The said society allotted
\nthe plots to its members.  The third respondent, by sale deed dated 21.5.1992,
\nwas allotted plot bearing No.HIC.  This respondent contends that although the
\nproperty was originally reserved for industrial purpose, yet, on account of the
\nobjections raised for having an industrial area inside the residential locality,
\nthe Registrar moved the Town Planning Authority for modification of the user
\ninto housing. Accordingly, by proceedings dated 7.8.1995, the user was modified
\ninto housing.  The Municipality was also informed about the same.  It is also
\nstated that under the sale deed dated 15.7.1993, one Kamala was also conveyed a
\nplot by the Society.  The first respondent further stated that while open space
\nwas encroached upon by certain individuals, this respondent took steps against
\nthe encroachment.  The Registrar of Cooperative Societies addressed the
\nCollector, Sivaganga and the Zonal Commissioner to take remedial action in this
\nregard.  Since there was no action, the third respondent and the said Kamala
\nfiled writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.4563 of 2006 and 8020 of 2006 respectively
\nbefore this Court.  Under order dated 19.6.2007, the writ petitions were heard
\ntogether and disposed of with certain directions.  Commenting that the
\npetitioners had not produced any document to establish their title over the
\nproperty encroached upon, the first respondent further pointed out to the writ
\npetition filed earlier by the petitioners, challenging the Municipality viz.,
\nW.P.(MD) No.9300 of 2007, wherein, the present petitioners took the stand that
\nthey were tenants of the Illuppukudi Devasthanam, paying rent to the
\nDevasthanam. There was no document to show that the petitioners were the lessees
\nof Illuppukudi Devasthanam.  This respondent comments that till this date, the
\npetitioners had not produced any document to substantiate the character of their
\nstay.  There is no planning permission obtained to construct the building.  In
\nthe background of the same, this respondent contends that no indulgence be shown
\nto the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
 \t5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the
\nimpugned proceedings in the present writ petitions are the offshoot of the order
\npassed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.4563 and 8020 of 2006, dated 19.06.2007.
\nSince Section 216(3) contemplates a discretion to be exercised by the
\nauthorities, in accordance with law and now the impugned notices have been
\nissued consequent upon the order of this Court dated 19.06.2007 made in
\nW.P.(MD)Nos.4563 and 8020 of 2006, there is no exercise of discretion to
\nconsider the claims of the petitioners, in accordance with law and consequently
\nthe discretion itself is scuttled and hence it is in violation of the provisions
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in terms of
\nthe decisions in (2006) 8 SCC 590 – Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M..Sangh  vs.  Arun
\nNathuram Gaikwad and others<\/a>; and AIR 1956 SC 110 – Calcutta Corpn.  v.
\nMulchand, the<\/a> term “may” as used in Section 216(3) of the Act cannot be read as
\n“shall” to take away the discretion of the Municipality while passing an order
\nunder Section 216(3).  Therefore, the action taken based on the decision of this
\nCourt dated 19.06.2007 is contrary to the law declared  and hence the impugned
\nnotices have to be struck down.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that even
\nassuming for a moment that the land in question belongs to the intervenor, the
\n3rd respondent herein, the proper course that the 3rd respondent may seek is not
\nto have the eviction done through the 2nd respondent.  Considering the fact that
\nthe allotment of the land to the 3rd respondent is against the very scheme of
\nthe Co-operative Society and the 3rd respondent is not having any valid title,
\nthe 3rd respondent has no say in this matter and hence the stand of the 3rd
\nrespondent is totally misconceived.  Learned counsel further pointed out that
\nassuming for a moment that the construction made by the petitioners is an
\nunauthorised one, all that could be ordered by the Municipality is a mere
\ndemolition and by such demolition, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the
\nland and the action contemplated by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the orders of
\nthis Court would be directly in conflict with the public interest and hence the
\norders of demolition cannot have any public cause.  He further stated that no
\nspecific statement as to the allegation of encroachment has been made by the 2nd
\nrespondent in the impugned notice.  In these circumstances, when the 3rd
\nrespondent has no title, the question of eviction of the petitioners does not
\narise.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In sum and substance, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
\nthe impugned proceedings is not made in exercise of the discretion that is
\nreserved under the Act and hence the orders passed pursuant to the orders of
\nthis Court has to be struck down.  With reference to the contention taken as
\nregards the review of the Order passed on 19.06.2007, learned counsel for the
\npetitioners pointed out that as the order is in conflict with the rights of the
\npetitioners, the same should have been made only after hearing those parties
\nwho are likely to be affected and the petitioners being the affected parties not
\nbeen heard while passing the order on 19.06.2007, the rights of the petitioners
\nare prejudiced, the said order requires a review.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the intervenor, the 3rd respondent,
\nhas submitted that the order passed on 19.06.2007 in W.P.(MD)Nos. 8020 and 4563
\nof 2006 has to be read in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court
\nreported in 2005(2) CTC 741 – Ramaraju,T  v.  The State of Tamil Nadu, wherein
\nall that had been directed by this Court was that the respondents are to
\ninitiate action in accordance with law.  Referring to the conflicting stand
\ntaken by the petitioners as to their occupation as one as lessee under the
\nTemple in the earlier writ proceedings and later on in the present writ petition
\nas an absolute owner of the premises, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent
\npointed out that the petitioners have not come with clean hands.  The land in
\nquestion, admittedly, is one allotted by the Cooperative Society to the 3rd
\nrespondent, which forms part of the approved layout.  As the land of the 3rd
\nrespondent, over which she has a valid title, had been encroached upon by the
\npetitioners, rightly the Municipality acted in terms of the orders of this Court
\nto remove the unauthorised constructions and the encroachment by directing the
\npetitioners to pull-down the unauthorised construction.  Hence no exception
\ncould be taken to the conduct of the Municipality.  He further pointed out that
\neven assuming that the occupation of the petitioners is a valid one, either as a
\nlessee or a licensee, in terms of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities
\nBuilding Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 3(3) there can be no application for
\nconstruction of a building without the consent of the owner.  Admittedly, no
\napplication had been made by the petitioners enclosing the consent of the owner
\nand even for that purpose taking the temple as the owner.  Consequently being an
\napproved lay out, there can be no change in the lay out scheme unless and until
\nthe Town Planning authorities are approached for exercise of power in terms of
\nSections 49 and 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.  In
\nthose circumstances, a large stretch of land which was purchased by the 3rd
\nrespondent cannot be allowed to be encroached upon by the petitioners even to
\nseek protection for putting up a construction in terms of the Building Rules or
\nfor that matter the Municipality to grant the same in terms of Section 197.
\nReferring to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2006 (5) SCC 282 – Seema
\nArshad Zaheer  v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai<\/a> that in matters of
\nunauthorised construction even for discretion to be exercised in favour of the
\npetitioners in terms of Section 216(3) of the Act, there must be prima facie
\nproof of the legal rights.  When there are hardly any materials which the
\npetitioners can lay hands on to substantiate their rights to be heard, given the
\nfact that the land in question is a private land and not a poromboke land, the
\npetitioners have no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions. Therefore,
\nlearned counsel for the 3rd respondent pointed out that the petitioners have
\nbeen making inconsistent stand throughout the proceedings before this Court and
\nelsewhere too and consequently, there can be no prejudice caused to the
\npetitioners and no indulgence be shown to protect the interest of the
\npetitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. As to the argument of the petitioners that all that could be done by
\nthe Municipality is to pull-down the structure, learned counsel for the 3rd
\nrespondent has fairly admitted that the notices that are now issued by the
\nMunicipality is only for the demolition of the unuthorised structures and that
\nthe present respondent has to establish her rights only through the common law
\nremedy.  In these circumstances, he prays for dismissal of all the writ
\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Contending that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the
\nallotment of large extent of land in favour of the 3rd respondent, learned
\ncounsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioners are not members of
\nthe    Co-operative Society even to question the allotment of huge land which is
\nabsolutely the discretion of the society.  Hence, no exception could be taken to
\nthe conduct of the Society in granting the land to the 3rd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. As regards the petitions filed by one of the writ petitioners seeking
\nleave of this Court to file review applications to review the order of this
\nCourt dated 19.06.2007 made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8020 and 4563 of 2007, learned
\ncounsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that after the decision of the Full
\nBench of this Court in Ramaraju’s case cited supra, the direction given by this
\nCourt on 19.06.2007 has to be read as one given to the Municipality to act in
\nterms of the provisions of the District Municipalities Act.  He further pointed
\nout that the order passed by the earlier Division Bench dated 19.06.2007 merely
\ndirected that action be taken in accordance with law, which does not mean that
\nthe petitioners rights are in any manner prejudiced and consequently prayed for
\ndismissal of the Review  Petitions as well as the  writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Commissioner, Karaikudi
\nMunicipality, submitted that the Commissioner was taking steps to have the
\nunauthorised constructions removed but, however, due to various subsequent
\nproceedings there is delay in implementing the orders of this Court and now the
\nMunicipality has issued final notices impugned in the present writ petitions to
\nremove the unauthorised constructions and there is no wilful default on the part
\nof the Municipal Commissioner in implementing the orders of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. A reading of the common order of this Court, dated 19.06.2007 shows
\nthat the same was passed in two writ petitions, namely W.P.(MD)Nos.8020  and
\n4563 of 2006 preferred by one Kamala and L.Gowri (third respondent in the
\npresent writ petition), respectively.  In W.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2006, the 3rd
\nrespondent in these writ proceedings, namely L.Gowri, had sought for a writ of
\nmandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 and 6 therein, namely (i) The District
\nCollector, Sivagangai District; (ii)The Special Officer, A.1321, Karaikudi Co-
\noperative House Building Society, Karaikudi; (iii)The Superintendent of Police,
\nSivagangai District; and (iv) The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
\n(Housing), Virudhunagar,  to implement the order, dated 15.03.2006, of the 4th
\nrespondent therein, namely The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing)
\nChennai,  and to remove the encroachments in Soodamanipuram Layout formed by the
\n2nd respondent society and obtain final approval of the layout from the 5th
\nrespondent Municipality.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. After hearing the parties therein, this Court pointed out that in the
\ncounter affidavit filed by the Municipality it had not denied its obligation to
\nclear the encroachments made in the public places.  This Court further pointed
\nout that spaces earmarked for public purposes, viz., roads, streets and open
\nspaces were transferred to the local authority viz., Karaikudi Municipality by
\nway of gift deed dated 13.6.2007.  This Court also pointed out the  suit by the
\nMunicipality in O.S.No.149\/2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Karaikudi,
\nseeking a mandatory injunction against encroachments.  Referring to the
\ncotnention of the third respondent herein as writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4563
\nof 2006 that one K.R.Lakshmi Narayanan has put up unauthorised construction in
\nher land, this Court disposed of the writ petitions and passed the following
\ndirections:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i) The learned Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi is hereby directed
\nto dispose of O.S.No.149 of 2004 pending on its file within a period of four
\nmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi is directed to
\nproceed with the eviction of the encroachers under the District Municipalities
\nAct.  If the encroachments are found to be in the road margin or in the streets,
\nin case the encroachments are found in other places, proceedings may be
\ninitiated under the Public Premises Act;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) In respect of the unauthorised constructions stated to be alleged to
\nhave been put up by the seventh respondent  in W.P.No.4563 of 2006 in Plot
\nNo.HIG TS No.1339P, the Commissioner Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi is
\ndirected to proceed under the District Municipalities Act for removal of the
\nunauthorised development.  This exercise must be completed within a period of
\nfour months from the date of receipt of a notice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Consequent thereon, on 28.08.2007, notices were issued to the writ
\npetitioners calling upon them to remove the unauthorised construction within
\nthree days from the date of receipt of the said Notice.  In W.P.(MD)Nos.9300 to
\n9305 etc. batch of 2007, the present writ petitioners and certain other persons,
\nwho were alleged to have encroached the land in question, sought for a writ of
\ncertiorari to quash the Notices dated 28.08.2007 issued by the respondent
\ntherein, namely Municipal Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality.  By the common
\norder dated 25.02.2008, the Division Bench of this Court held that in view of
\nthe order passed by this Court in the earlier round of writ proceedings in W.P.
\nNo.10557 of 2005  dated 7.12.2005 directing the writ petitioners to approach the
\ncivil court to establish their title and for interim orders and considering the
\nMunicipality filing a suit and an interim injunction  granted in favour of the
\nalleged encroachers, the notices of demolition was quashed, subject to the
\nresult of the suits in O.S.No.57 of 2005 an O.S.No.149\/2004 on the file of
\nDistrict Munsif Court, Karaikudi.  This Court further pointed out that the
\npetitioners in W.P.No.10557 of 2005 were the petitioners in W.P.No.7611 of 2007.
\nThis Court held that there can be no construction without any approved plan
\nissued by the authorities concerned and hence the Municipality was at liberty to
\nproceed against such unauthorised construction in accordance with law.  The said
\norder was made particularly with reference to  those petitioners in
\nW.P.(MD)No.9300 to  9305, 7898 and 7980  to 7985 of 2007, who are petitioners in
\nthe present writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.9668\/2009, 9670\/2009, 9674\/2009,
\n9680\/2009 and, 9677\/2009.  This Court further pointed out that the notices
\nissued to the petitioners could be proceeded with and the petitioners were also
\npermitted to file their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of
\nthe order.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Once again in W.P.(MD)No.78\/2009, the present writ petitioners, apart
\nfrom other petitioners, approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to
\ndirect the Board of Council, Kariakudi Municipality, the 1st respondent herein,
\nto consider and disposal of their appeals filed against the notices of
\ndemolition dated 14.11.2008.  By order dated 07.01.2009, this Court directed
\nthat the petitioners be given an opportunity to proceed with their appeal under
\nSection 322 of the Act and the 1st respondent namely, the Board of Council,
\nKaraikudi Municipality, Sivagangai District, was directed to dispose of the
\nappeals within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order
\ntherein.  The said appeals were however dismissed by the Council.  In view of
\nthe dismissal of the appeal, writ petitions filed before this Court in
\nW.P.(MD)Nos.3071, 5428, 10115, 10114 and 11354 of 2008 were disposed of by this
\nCourt by order dated 05.08.2009 directing the Municipality to take appropriate
\naction under the provisions of the Act for the removal of the encroachments on
\nthe land owned by the Housing Society and for the demolition of the buildings
\nwhich are constructed without approprite planning permission and that before
\ndoing so, the Municipality should follow the procedure prescribed by law.  This
\nCourt further pointed out that the law applicable to the demolition shall be
\napplied by the Municipality uniformly to all violators without any
\ndiscrimination. This Court also dismissed W.P.No.3011 of 2008 filed by one
\nS.R.Sorna Kaleeswaran alleging irregularities in the allotment of house sites by
\nthe Cooperative Building Society.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In the context of these facts, the contention of the 3rd respondent as
\nregards to inconsistent stand of the petitioners merits to be taken note of in
\nthe writ proceedings now under the consideration, particularly
\nW.P.(MD)No.9668\/2009.  The petitioners claim themselves to be in occupation and
\nenjoyment of property for more than a decade by constructing pucca houses.  They
\nhave also referred to the property as originally belonging to Arulmighu
\nSuyamparakeswarar Temple Devasthanam, Illupukkudi.  Learned counsel for the 3rd
\nrespondent rightly pointed out that while in the proceedings in the earlier
\nround the writ petitioners have pointed out that they were the lessees of the
\nsaid Temple, in the suit, all of a sudden, the present writ petitioners brought
\nin a change  to their stand that they are the occupiers of the land, ownership
\nof which is not on anybody, including that of the temple.  Learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioners is fair enough to admit that the land in question
\nis not a poromboke land; nor do they say that they are the lessees of the
\ntemple.  Learned counsel for the petitioners would only point out that the
\ncharacter of their stay as a lessee or licensee or not is not of relevance for
\nthe purpose of considering the contention of the petitioners.  We record this
\nsubmission as an admission of the fact that the petitioners are not the owners
\nof the land in which they had put up their construction.  As rightly pointed out
\nby the learned counsel for the third respondent, the inconsistencies in the
\nstand of the petitioners as to their holding as evidenced in the various writ
\nproceedings and the suit  proceedings merely highlight the anxiety of the
\npetitioner to somehow resist an order from by the statutory authority in lawful
\nexercise of their power. Rightly, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent brought
\nbefore us the necessary documents to substantiate his claim as a purchaser from
\nthe Society the 3rd respondent is the lawful owner of the property and hence no
\nexception could be taken to the title of the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Leaving aside the claim of the 3rd respondent on this aspect as fairly
\nadmitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the present notices
\nare for demolition of the unauthorised construction alone that issues as regards
\nthe right and title that the 3rd respondent claims, certainly is a matter for
\nthe civil Court to go into, the only question that falls for consideration of
\nthis Court in these proceedings is as to whether the action undertaken by the
\n2nd respondent Municipality is one in accordance with the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.The petitioners are not disputing the authority of the 2nd respondent
\nto issue the notices under Section 216(3) of the Act.  But, all that they have
\nstated is that notices do not have the necessary support of law considering the
\nfact that the notices in question are issued pursuant to the earlier order of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. We do not agree with the said stand of the learned counsel for the
\npetitioners.  A perusal of the notices under challenge shows that they are final
\nnotices issued under Sections 338, 339 read with Section 216(3) of the Act.  It
\nis no doubt true that the impugned notices refer to the order of this Court
\ndated 19.06.2007 made in W.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2006.  A perusal of the order of
\nthis court dated 19.06.2007, leaves no manner of doubt that all that it had held
\nwas that the unauthorised constructions have to be removed by the Municipality
\nin accordance with the provisions of the Act, if the encroachments were found to
\nbe in the road margin or in the street or found in other places, proceedings
\nshould be initiated under the Public Premises Act.  Considering the unauthorised
\nconstruction put up by the 7th respondent in W.P(MD)No.4563 of 2006, namely one
\nLakshmi Narayanan, this Court directed the Karaikudi Municipality to proceed
\nunder the District Municipalities Act for the removal of unauthorised
\ndevelopment.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.The sum and substance of the order passed by this Court on 19.6.2007 is
\nthat the Municipality was directed to take action in accordance with the
\nprovisions of the District Municipalities Act to clear unauthorised
\nconstructions made in certain places.  The grievance of the petitioner in
\nW.P.(MD)No.4563 of 2006, the third respondent in the present writ petitions was
\nthat unauthorised constructions were made without obtaining planning permission
\nand they should be removed after observing the provisions of District
\nMunicipalities Act.  A reading of the said order of this Court refers to general
\ncharacter of unauthorised constructions and there is no particular direction as
\nto the writ petitioners herein to seek a review of the said order on the ground
\nthat pursuant to the said order alone the present proceedings are issued and
\nhence  the rights of the petitioners are prejudiced and that there is no
\ndiscretion exercised by the authorities at all to consider the objection of the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. A reading of the present final notice issued by the Municipality shows
\nthe reference to the earlier notices issued in this regard.  It is relevant to
\nnote that the petitioners had also approached this Court and elsewhere earlier
\nalso challenging the notice of demolition and seeking stay of those proceedings.
\nHence, it is incorrect to contend factually too that the petitioners were not
\ngranted the opportunity to put forth their contentions or for that matter the
\nMunicipality had abdicated its discretion to the direction of this Court.  We
\nreject the plea of the petitioners that the Municipality has failed to observe
\nthe provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. We agree with the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that except
\nfor the inconsistent stand of the petitioners as to the character of their stay,
\nthere is hardly any material at all to the petitioners to defend the proceedings
\ntaken under Section 216(3) of the Act.  Learned counsel for the petitioners
\ncould not lay his hands on any materials even to substantiate the fact that the
\nbuildings had been put up with the permission of the authorities under the
\nprovisions of the District Municipalities Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. Going by the very provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu District
\nMunicipalities Building Rules,  construction in any land which is not under the
\nownership of the petitioners can be made only with the consent of the owner.
\nGoing by Section 216 of the Act wherever there is unauthorised construction or
\nconstruction is in violation of the planning permission, irrespective of the
\nfact as to whether the land is a leasehold land or under ownership, the
\nauthorities concerned, who are empowered to grant permission or sanction
\nconstruction of a building, are equally vested with the authority to clear those
\nconstruction which are in violation of the provisions of the District
\nMunicipalities Act, particularly  Section 216(3) of the Act.  In such
\ncircumstances, it goes without saying that the exercise of the authority in this
\nregard is not dependent on any direction from this Court.  On the other hand,
\nsource of the authority is traceable to the provisions of the Act and not from
\nthe judgment of this Court.  Consequently, we do not find any justification in
\nthe submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that only consequent
\non the directions of this Court the impugned notices were issued by the 2nd
\nrespondent.  The contention of the petitioners, if it is to be accepted, would
\namount to inviting this Court to ignore the provisions of the Act to trace the
\nauthority of the statutory body to the direction of this Court.  All this Court
\npointed out in its order dated 19.6.2007 was that the authorities were directed
\nto act in accordance with law to remove the encroachment.  In fact, this only
\nindicates that the authorities were directed not to act arbitrarily and
\ncapriciously, but to act in due observance of law.  The impugned notices have
\nbeen issued under Sections 338, 339 read with Section 216(3) of the Act.
\nTherefore we hold that there is proper exercise of discretion on the factual
\nmatrix of the case by the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. Admittedly, the petitioners have not put up their constructions with
\nthe permission from the Municipality.  In the absence of any application shown
\nto this Court that the construction is made as per the planning permission of
\nthe authority concerned, there is no gain saying that the authorities have acted
\nin violation of the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Even apart from all these, a reading of the notices impugned before
\nthis Court clearly show the reference to the earlier notices issued by the
\nMunicipality.  A reference to the decision of this Court in the notice impugned
\ndoes not mean that the authorities have abdicated their discretion to the
\ndictates of this Court.  Hence, going by the reference to the earlier notices,
\nthe present notice is only a final notice calling upon the petitioners to
\ndemolish or remove the unauthorised constructions within a time frame, failing
\nwhich the Municipality indicated their decision to remove the same by recovering
\ncost of the removal from the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.In these circumstances, we hold that there is no violation of
\nprinciples of natural justice in issuing the impugned notice.  The said view
\nwill also apply equally to the contention of the petitioners as regards the
\napplications filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court in
\nW.P.(MD)No.4563 and 8020 of 2006, dated 19.06.2007.  As already stated, going by
\nthe general tenor of the order dated 19.06.2007 and the present proceedings
\nemanating following the statutory provisions, we reject the plea of the
\npetitioners that the impugned proceedings are totally in violation of the
\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. As regards the contention of the 3rd respondent that the land in
\nquestion on which the petitioners have put up unauthorised construction is
\nforming part of an approved layout, and as such, there cannot be any permission
\nto the petitioners to have that construction, it is not necessary for us to get
\ninto the said aspect of the matter for the simple reason that the petitioners
\nhad not placed before this Court any material to show that there had been a
\nproper application made and even assuming there was an application made, this
\nhas to comply with Rule 3(3) of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building
\nRules, 1972.  In any event, the decision of this Court in 2006 (1) CTC 241 – The
\nChairman, M.M.D.A.  v. S.Radhakrishnan<\/a> clearly touches on the duty and
\njurisdiction of  the authorities concerned, particularly under the Town and
\nCountry Planning Act, that if a layout approved is to undergo change in its
\ncharacter, it necessary need to go through the process laid down therein.  This
\nis apart from the fact that the petitioners are not members of the Society even
\nto go for this exercise by the statutory bodies.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended  that the 3rd
\nrespondent’s ownership and title as to the land itself is a void one, since the
\nallotment of such a large extent of land to her is in gross violation of the
\nvery scheme of the society and hence no purpose would be served in the
\ndemolition of the buildings which stand in the property which is not under the
\nvalid title of the 3rd respondent.  We herein once again point out and record
\nthe fair statement made by  the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the
\npresent impugned notices are mainly concerned about the demolition of the
\nunauthorised construction therein as initiated by the Municipality.  The rights
\nof the 3rd respondent as the lawful owner of the property are issues which
\nnecessarily have to be canvassed in a forum other than this Court under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India.  We agree with the submission of the learned
\ncounsel for the 3rd respondent, particularly with reference to his  reliance on
\nthe decision in 2006 (5) SCC 282 cited supra, that even to grant a discretionary
\nprayer to a party complaining of disturbance to his holdings, there must be a
\nprima facie case made for a protection of the rights and the possible injury
\nthat the party may suffer if an injunction is not granted.  In the said
\ndecision, the Apex Court held that in the absence of any material to
\nsubstantiate an injury that a party will suffer if demolition is to be ordered,
\nwhen the construction is clearly an unauthorised one, the Court cannot act on
\nany misplaced sympathy or hardship.  Guided by the said decision of the Apex
\nCourt, we do not find there exists a case for quashing the notices issued by the
\n2nd respondent herein.  As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
\n3rd respondent, title is a matter  which needs to be tested on the basis of the
\nevidence available for the parties and hence has to be gone through only before
\nthe forum.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. The proceedings now under challenge in these writ petitions are the
\nfinal notices of demolition issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
\nDistrict Municipalities Act under Sections 338, 339 read with Section  216(3).
\nGoing by the provisions of law, we do not find any justification in the plea of
\nthe petitioners even to apply the principles of equity in their favour.  The
\ndecisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, particularly
\n(2006) 8 SCC 590 has no relevance to the facts of the case herein, since the
\ndirections of this Court, dated 19.06.2007, in W.P.(MD)No.4563 and 8020 of 2006
\nhave not in any manner stalled or curtailed the authority of the Municipal
\nCommissioner in exercising his discretion in the matter of demolition of
\nunauthorised constructions.  The present writ petitions can only be viewed as an
\nattempt seeking review of the order passed by this Court in the earlier
\nproceedings, particularly on 25.02.2008 in W.P.(MD)Nos.9300 to 9305\/2007 etc.
\nbatch, wherein this Court has made a clear direction as to the removal  of
\nunauthorised   constructions.  The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9300 of 2007 is one
\nof the petitioners herein in these writ petitions also, apart from others who
\nare parties herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. In the above circumstances,  we do not find any justification in
\nquashing the impugned notices issued by the 2nd respondent herein, the Municipal
\nCommissioner, Karaikudi Municipality.  Consequently, all  the writ petitions
\nstand dismissed. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in all the writ petitions are
\nalso dismissed.  For the reasons already stated, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in
\nRev.Aplw.(MD)SR Nos.40732 and 40734 of 2009 are also rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. Considering the orders passed, the Municipal authorities of Karaikudi
\nMunicipality are directed to implement the orders of this Court already passed
\nwithout any further delay.  It is made clear that any further delay in this
\nregard unmindful of the orders passed would certainly call for a serious action
\nfrom this Court and for the time being we do not propose to issue any order of
\npunishment on the Municipal Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality.  With the
\nabove observation, Contempt Petition (MD)No.174 of 2008 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
gb<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1. The Board of Council,
\n   Karaikudi Municipality,
\n   Karaikudi,Sivagangai District.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Municipal Commissioner,
\n    Karaikudi Municipality,
\n    Karaikudi,
\n    Sivagangai District.\n<\/p>\n
3. S.Kalaiselvan,
\n   The Commissioner,
\n   Karaikudi Municipality,
\n   Karaikudi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Writ Petition (MD) Nos.9668 to 9681 of 2009 Writ Petition (MD) Nos.10150 and 10151 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMeenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-25T21:17:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-25T21:17:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6931,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-25T21:17:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-25T21:17:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-25T21:17:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009"},"wordCount":6931,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009","name":"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-25T21:17:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/meenal-vs-the-board-of-council-on-12-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Meenal vs The Board Of Council on 12 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187680","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}