(Prayer in W.P.No.20911 of 2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from putting up any construction in the land earmarked for park and other public purposes in the approved lay out in No.LPH No.41/73 and LPH/DT & CP No.17/75 of house sites in Sholinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram district and consequently direct them to restore the land to its original position.

In W.P.No. 23563 of 2006: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the 1st respondent, Ref: No. Na.Ka.No.426/2006/A1 dated 26.6.2006 and quash the same.)

Common Order:

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. A common order is passed in both these Writ Petitions and we are of the considered view that neither Writ Petition is maintainable.

2. W.P.No.20911 of 2006 has been filed by the Executive Officer Special Village Panchayat, Sholinganallur, Kancheepuram District. Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner states that now the Panchayat has been merged with Chennai Corporation and he seeks permission to amend the cause title. He has filed a memo dated 05.01.2026 to this effect, which is ordered.

3. We have heard Mr.G.T.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.20911 of 2006/respondents in W.P.No.23563 of 2006, Mr.N.Selvaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.23563 of 2006/R6 in W.P.No.20911 of 2006, Mr.E.P.Semiyangiri, learned Government Advocate for R1 and R2 and Mr.P.Anandakumar, learned Government Advocate for R3 and R4 in W.P.No.20911 of 2006.

4. The prayer in W.P.No.20911 of 2006 is for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from putting up any construction in the land earmarked for park and other public purposes in the approved lay out in No.LPH No.41/73 and LPH/DT & CP No.17/75 in Sholinganallur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Kancheepuram district (‘property’/’property in question’). They seek consequential a direction to the respondents to restore the land to its original position.

5. It is as a counter blast to this petition that W.P.No.23563 of 2006 has been filed by R6 in W.P.No.20911 of 2006 challenging the notice issued by the then Special Village Panchayat, Sholinganallur Village, arising out of the same cause of action that they have espoused in W.P.No.20911 of 2006.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would make an attempt to point out factual aspects in relation to the impugned notice, which, according to him, are misconceived. However, we are disinclined to consider the challenge to notice in light of the disputed facts at play. It is only appropriate that the petitioner in W.P.No.23563 of 2006 respond to the notice within a period of two (2) weeks from today, assuming that no reply has been filed thus far. The authorities will proceed in accordance with law and conclude the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously and not beyond a period of twelve (12) weeks from today.

7. Learned counsel for the Chennai Corporation states, on instructions, that though notices that have been issued to all the respondents in W.P.No.20911 of 2006, the construction is, at their instance, completed.

8. We are unable to fathom how this could have transpired pending proceedings of the Corporation. It is for the Village Panchayat (now Chennai Corporation) to take/continue with the action initiated already in accordance with law, and expeditiously, and they are directed to do so.

9. With this, both Writ Petitions are dismissed with the directions issued above. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.

10. Status report be filed by the Corporation within a period of three (3) months from today, to be circulated to us in chambers.