Disposed

V.Harikrishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2014WP/27171/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus to remove encroachments on a street and lay a drainage channel. The Court directed the first respondent to remove encroachments within three months after giving notice and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Order directed the first respondent to remove encroachments on the road after notice and complete the action within three months.

V.Harikrishnan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14-10-2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.27171 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
V.Harikrishnan .. Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector
Thiruvallur District
Tiruvallur
2.The Tahsildar
Poonamallee Taluk
Poonamallee
Tiruvallur District
3.The Executive Officer
Tiruninravur Town Panchayat
Tiruninravur
Tiruvallur District
4.The Assistant Director
Tiruvallur District Panchayat Office
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachments on the 2^nd Street, Vachalapuram, Tiruninravur Town Panchayat Union, as per F.M.B. in S.No.226 and directing the third respondent to lay drainage channel on the street.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶12

The petitioner claims to be a resident at the Second Street, Vachalapuram, Tiruninravur Town Panchayat and seeks to file https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the present Public Interest Litigation on account of encroachment on the street, which as per the plan, is to be 5.4 meters of width, but only 8 feet road is left. It is the case of the petitioner that he

¶13

and other residents have been making representations from 8.2.2010 onwards, but to no avail. The drainage water is stated to be coming onto the road. Photographs in this behalf have been filed along with the petition. The endeavour to float a tender to tar the road is stated to be an improper exercise in as much as it excludes the encroached area and thus seeks to support the encroachers.

¶14

2.We thus call upon the first respondent to bestow their consideration on the representations and take action in accordance with law in case of encroachments being found on the road, after notice to the concerned parties. The action be taken and completed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and duly communicated to the petitioner.

¶15

3.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP stands closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-Iv)
Dated: 5.11..2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsv
To:
1.The District Collector
Thiruvallur District
Tiruvallur
2.The Tahsildar
Poonamallee Taluk
Poonamallee
Tiruvallur District
3.The Executive Officer
Tiruninravur Town Panchayat
Tiruninravur
Tiruvallur District
4.The Assistant Director
Tiruvallur District Panchayat Office
Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
+ 1 cc to Mr.P. Krishnan, Advocate SR.48890
+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR.49066

¶17

W.P.No.27171 of 2014 RBD(CO) Eu 05/11/14

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Harikrishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Harikrishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rethinaraj Vs B.Vellaiammal

Perumbakkam Residents Vs The District Collector

A.Umapathi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

P.Ravichandran Vs District Collector

V.Anbazhagan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Ramanathan, Vs The Managing Director