VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2025 › High Court of Madras

K.A.Gopinath v. The Commissioner

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
14 July 2025
Bench
M. Sundarauthor, Hemant Chandangoudar
Case no.
WP 25366/2025

Follow Madras High CourtFollow M. SundarFollow Hemant Chandangoudar

Judgment

ORDER [made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) pertains to 'S.Nos.17/2A1, 2A2, 2B (T.S.No.1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) situated at Ward A, Block No.33, Madhavaram Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai District' (hereinafter 'said lands' for the sake of convenience and clarity). Page Nos.2/8

¶2Mr. N. Umapathi, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner, submits that there is encroachment in said lands, R4 (private respondent) is the alleged encroacher, repeated representations have been made for removal of encroachment, the same have not yielded results and that has necessitated the captioned WP.

¶3Issue notice to official respondents (RR 1 to 3).

¶4Mr. G.T. Subramanian, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for official respondents (RR 1 to 3).

¶5Learned Standing counsel, submits, on instructions that pursuant to writ petitioner's representation, stop work notice has been issued by Greater Chennai Corporation and survey of said lands will be completed within six weeks from today i.e., on or before 25.08.2025. Page Nos.3/8

¶6Learned State counsel also submits that a survey report will be drawn up and in the survey report, if any encroachment is found, alleged encroacher, be it private respondent (R4) or any other person/entity will be put on notice i.e., show caused vide Section 128 of the amended Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 2022 (hereinafter 'The TNULB Act' for the sake of brevity).

¶7This means that private respondent (R4) and/or any other encroacher(s) will have a say and they will be given an opportunity to put forth their version. In this view of the matter, we make it clear that we are not passing an order which is touching upon the rights of private respondent in any manner and on the contrary, we are preserving all the rights and contentions of private respondent. Therefore, we dispense with notice to private respondent.

¶8In the light of the aforesaid scenario, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, captioned WP is taken up for hearing in the Admission Board, i.e., Motion List. Page Nos.4/8

¶9The following order is made: i. Survey qua said lands, after putting all concerned on notice, R4 in particular, will be concluded as expeditiously as the official business of R1 would permit but in any event within a period of six weeks from today i.e., on or before 25.08.2025; ii. In the survey report, if any encroachment qua said lands is noticed, be it by private respondent or any other person/entity, they will be put on notice inter alia vide Section 128 of the TNULB Act which, in effect, means that the alleged encroacher would be given an opportunity and action, if any, under the TNULB Act would be commenced within six weeks therefrom i.e., on or before 06.10.2025; iii. Though obvious, as alluded to supra, we make it clear that we preserve all the rights and contentions of the private respondent and/or any other noticee qua the TNULB Act, if that be so; and Page Nos.5/8 iv. Though equally obvious, we further make it clear that we have not expressed any view or opinion one way or the other regarding alleged encroachment qua said lands.

¶10Captioned WP stands disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.)

14.07.2025 cad Page Nos.6/8 To

¶1The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Buildings 53, Raja Muthiah Road Periamedu Chennai 600 003

¶2The Zonal Officer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone – 3 No.1, Thattankulam Street Bazaar Street Madhavaram Chennai

¶3The Assistant Engineer Chennai Greater Corporation Division – 27 Arul Nagar Main Road Madhavaram Chennai Page Nos.7/8

M.SUNDAR, J. and

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J. cad W.P.No.25366 of 2025

14.07.2025 Page Nos.8/8

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR K.A. Gopinath Petitioner vs. 1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Buildings 53, Raja Muthiah Road Periamedu Chennai 600 003 2. The Zonal Officer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone – 3 No.1, Thattankulam Street Bazaar Street Madhavaram Chennai 3. The Assistant Engineer Chennai Greater Corporation Division – 27 Arul Nagar Main Road Madhavaram Chennai 4. Sudhakar Respondents Page Nos.1/8 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in eastern side of the park situated at S.Nos.17/2A1, 2A2, 2B (T.S.No.1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5) situated at Ward A, Block No.33, Madhavaram Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai District, within a stipulated time frame. For petitioner Mr. N. Umapathi For RR 1 to 3 Mr. G.T. Subramanian Standing Counsel For R4 Notice dispensed with

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.