MOHIDEEN ALLAH PICHAI, Vs. MADRAS METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners herein seeking for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from doing or causing to be done any act or acts in pursuance of its notice No.EN2/16096/94 dated 4.4.95 and notice No.EN2/16096/94 dated 8.2.96 issued in respect of the property of the petitioners bearing D.No.40, Mafuzkhan Garden Street, Madras -600 001.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced his arguments as follows: -

(3.) The respondent has not chosen to file his counter denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is seen from the records placed before me that the notice dated 04 -04 -1995 under Sec. 56 read with Sec. 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was sent to one Vinodha Lorry Service, which according to the petitioners is one of the tenants in the premises. The petitioners have purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 20 -10 -1994. The said Vinodha Lorry Service has handed over the said notice to the petitioner, the petitioner immediately sent a reply dated 26 -05 -1995 by registered post with acknowledgment due giving particulars about the property. The alleged construction was put up as early as 1977 by the predecessors of the petitioners and it is seen that they have also paid fine on 21 -06 -1977. It is further mentioned in the said notice that the respondent has wrongly issued the notice to one of the tenants namely Vinodha Lorry Service and not to them. Again, the respondent sent a letter dated 16 -10 -1995 addressed to the same Vinodha Lorry Service calling upon them to produce some documents and the petitioners have also sent a reply dated 25 -10 -1995 enclosing Xerox copies of all the tax receipts by registered post with acknowledgment due. Even after receipt of the said letter, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 08 -02 -1996 stating that