M.PARVATHY Vs. COMMISSIONER CHENNAI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents particularly that of the 1st respondent in L&E.D.C.No.LE4/2491/56, dated 09.07.2004 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Z.O. IV R.D.C.No.R3/510/05 dated 09.05.2005 and quash the same as illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and against principles of natural justice and consequently forbear the respondents 1 and 2, their men, agents, servants etc. from in any manner disturb the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property situate at No.52, Subbarayan 2nd street, Nammalvarpet, Chennai-600

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father in law was a specialist bone setter using native medicines. Recognizing his services, the respondents leased out the land on 27.06.1956 vide R.D.C.No.F7-2491/56. The lease agreement was extended periodically from time to time. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.683 LA dated 28.03.1959, the respondents contributed a sum of Rs.100/- per month towards the recognition of non-medical work contributed by the petitioner's father in law. The petitioner's father in law was running the bone setting home under the name and style "?Subbanarayana Bone Setting Home"?. The petitioner contended that the petitioner's father in law died in the year 1977, after his death, the petitioner's husband Mr.G.Munnusamy was running the above Bone Setting Home. The respondents continued to pay the contribution amount even after the death of the petitioner father in law.

(3.) The petitioner submitted that the land leased by the respondents was put to use by constructing building. Since the respondents initiated proceedings to demolish the said building, during the year 1985, the petitioner husband filed O.S.No.6359 of 1985 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner husband on 18.08.1987 whereby the respondents were restrained from demolishing the super structure or any part thereof in the above property. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 21.09.2001, the 1st respondent, referring to Government letter dated 25.02.2000 and the resolution of the Chennai Corporation No.432/2000 dated 20.07.2000 called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,400/- towards one time settlement for continuous occupation and usage of the above property. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner made a representation requesting the respondents to show concessions regarding the one time settlement. Based on the petitioner letter dated 10.10.2001, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 07.02.2002, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.95,788.35/-. Accordingly, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 14.11.2002, then further sum of Rs.10,000 on 07.02.2005 and sum of Rs.10,000/- on 07.04.2005. Therefore, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- out of total sum of Rs.95,788.35/-. Now, the petitioner has to pay balance sum of Rs.50,788.35/-.