logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1087 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 2522 of 2026 & W.M.P. No. 2754 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Parties : D. Kalyana Sundaram Versus The Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: T. Surendran, Advocate. For the Respondents: Kiran Kumar for P.T. Ramadevi, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 04-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to stop all the demolishing activities to be carried out by the Respondent Corporation upon the said corporation shopping complex Situated at 3rd Avenue, Indra Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020.)

1. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents herein to stop all the demolishing activities to be carried out by the Respondent Corporation upon the said corporation shopping complex situated at 3rd Avenue, Indra Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020.

2. The petitioner pleads that a lot of shop owners are in occupation of the ground and 1st floor of the Corporation Shopping Complex at Indra Nagar. He states that the Corporation had shifted the owners from the northern side of the shopping complex to the southern side, seeking vacant possession, for the purpose of renovation. Instead of renovating the property, the officials of the corporation had demolished the northern side and are proceeding with fresh construction for putting up the food court. The petitioner states that the prior to the demolition, no notice of eviction was given to any of the shop owners and this has caused serious prejudice to the shop owners.

3. At the time of admission, Ms.Vidya Sri representing the standing counsel Ms.Ramadevi, represented that she has been orally instructed that the building had become ruinous and was highly dilapidated. Consequently, the Corporation had to take a call on pulling down the existing structure. She stated that said exercise was carried out to ensure the safety of occupants. Hence, I called upon Ms.Vidhyasri to file an affidavit of the concerned official.

4. Mr.Kiran Kumar has filed an affidavit of one Mr.Senthil Kumaran, the District Revenue Officer cum Assistant Commissioner, Zone-XIII, Greater Chennai Corporation, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the northern side of the shopping complex had become dilapidated. The Corporation came to the said conclusion, pursuant to a direction given by this Court in W.P.No.25424 of 2022 dated 03.01.2023. The Corporation found that the building is dilapidated and decided to demolish the shopping complex of the northern side and put up a new construction in the same location.

5. The affidavit also states that prior to the demolition, all the shop owners, who were in occupation of the northern side were put on notice and they were relocated to the southern side of the said shopping complex. The Assistant Commissioner further stated that no occupant has been evicted without providing an alternate shop and that no shop owner has been left out without a premise to carry on his business. The affidavit further adds that in case, the Greater Chennai Corporation decides to demolish the entire shopping complex, alternate shops will be allotted to the tenants in a nearby shopping complex. The Assistant Commissioner has made certain allegation against the writ petitioner. Those allegations are unnecessary to entertain this writ petition, as they are not germane.

6. The point remains that the property belongs to the Greater Chennai Corporation. It is upto the Corporation to decide what it wants to do with it. An occupant of the shop cannot dictate terms to the owner as to how it should use the property. A reading of the counter affidavit shows that all the shop owners have been accommodated in alternate shops. It is upto the corporation to decide whether to reconstruct the entire shopping complex or pull down a portion thereof for reconstruction. Such an exercise, in my view, cannot be interfered in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

7. Apart from that, photographs produced by Mr. Kiran Kumar indicate that the building has become absolutely useless and dangerous for the occupants. For ready reference, the same is scanned and extracted hereunder:

                  

                  

                  

                  

8. At this stage Mr.Surendran states that the tiolets have not been constructed for the persons who are relocated.

9. Mr.Vinod V, Assistant Engineer, who was present before this Court today states that the toilet facilities have already been provided for all the occupants. The same is recorded.

10. Apart from the aforesaid recording, no further orders need to be passed in this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal