Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Sathyanathan vs the Commissioner

Sathyanathan vs The Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 27, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1495581

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/44202/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sathyanathan

Respondent

The Commissioner

Excerpt

.....counsel for r5 r6 - no appearance *****order[made by s.m.subramaniam, j.,] with reference to the relief sought for in the present writ petition, the learned standing counsel for the tamil nadu urban habitat development board would submit that the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent are allottees of the residential plots by the erstwhile slum clearance board. page nos.2/5 there is a dispute between two plot owners. however, the slum clearance board has executed a sale deed in favour of plot occupier 19. in any event, it is a private dispute between the parties and therefore, they are at liberty to approach the competent civil court of law, if any grievance exists.2. with the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. (s.m.s.,j.) (k.s.,j.) 27.03.2026 index : yes neutral citation : yes / nospeaking order / non-speaking ordermk page nos.3/5 to1. the commissioner ripon building, chennai-600 003.2. the zonal officer (zone 6) pattalam, purasaivakkam, chennai-600 012.3. the executive engineer4. the assistant engineer div-74, zone 6 mangalapuram, perambur high road (east) chennai-600 102.5. the chairman tamil nadu urban habitat development board (head office) no.05 kamarajar salai, chepauk near vivekananda house, chennai-600 005. page nos.4/5 s. m. subramaniam, j., and k. surender, j., mk 27.03.2026 page nos.5/5

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER Satyanathan S/o.P.Marthandan ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Commissioner Ripon Building Chennai-600 003.

2. The Zonal Officer (Zone 6)

3. The Executive Engineer

4. The Assistant Engineer Div-74, Zone 6 Mangalapuram, Perambur High Road (East) Chennai-600 102. Page Nos.1/5

5. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (Head Office) No.05 Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk Near Vivekananda House, Chennai-600 005.

6. Mrs.Kannammal S/o.Late Venugopal … Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.10.2025 or any other alternative remedy. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Vignesh For Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel for R1 to R4 Mr.B.Balaji Standing Counsel for R5 R6 - No appearance *****

ORDER

[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] With reference to the relief sought for in the present writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board would submit that the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent are allottees of the residential plots by the erstwhile Slum Clearance Board. Page Nos.2/5 There is a dispute between two plot owners. However, the Slum Clearance Board has executed a sale deed in favour of Plot occupier 19. In any event, it is a private dispute between the parties and therefore, they are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court of law, if any grievance exists.

2. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 27.03.2026 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No

Speaking order / Non-speaking order

mk Page Nos.3/5 To

1. The Commissioner Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.

2. The Zonal Officer (Zone 6) Pattalam, Purasaivakkam, Chennai-600 012.

3. The Executive Engineer

4. The Assistant Engineer Div-74, Zone 6 Mangalapuram, Perambur High Road (East) Chennai-600 102.

5. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (Head Office) No.05 Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk Near Vivekananda House, Chennai-600 005. Page Nos.4/5 S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and K. SURENDER, J., mk 27.03.2026 Page Nos.5/5

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Sathyanathan vs The Commissioner Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice S. M. Subramaniam,Honourable Mr.Justice...
Speaking order court of law civil court high court As well as high road If any

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales