Disposed

V.Vijayapal, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Apr 2015WP/9024/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madaras High Court disposed five writ petitions by directing the Assistant Engineer to consider the petitioners' representation for alternate allotment of living place within eight weeks, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 08.04.2013 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

V.Vijayapal, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 13.04.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition Nos. 9024 to 9028 of 2014 and M.P. Nos.1 of 2014 (5 petitions)

¶6

V. Vijayapal .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9024/2014
K. Thirunavukkarasu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9025/2014
V. Aiyappan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9026/2014
P. Jamuna .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9027/2014
S. Nalini .. Petitioner in W.P.No.9028/2014
vs.
1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works
Department, Water Resources Organisation
Adyar Irrigation Division, St.Thomas Mount
Chennai-16. ...Respondents in
all the WPs

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 08.04.2013 and give allotment of alternative living place to the petitioners as persons evicted from Ayanambakkam Lake Area, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶8

For Petitioners : M/s. R&P Partners

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. M.L. Mahendran Govt. Advocate.

¶10

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

¶11

COMMON ORDER

¶12

By consent of both sides, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their representation for allotment of alternate living place.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioners claim that earlier, they were living in Ayanambakkam Lake Area. Admittedly, they had already been evicted. Therefore, the petitioners gave a joint representation dated 08.04.2013 to the first respondent seeking alternate allotment. However, the first respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶15

Considering the limited nature of the prayer sought and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 08.04.2013 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2014 are closed.

¶16

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CO) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar ATR

¶17

To;

¶18

The District Collector, Thiruvallur Thiruvallur District.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk Thiruvallur District.

¶20

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

¶21

The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organisation Adyar Irrigation Division, St.Thomas Mount Chennai-16.

¶22

6 ccs to Mr.M/s. R & P Partners, Advocate, sr. 20774

¶23

W.P. Nos. 9024 to 9028 of 2014

¶24

UG (CO)
kk 27/4

¶25

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

V.Vijayapal, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vijayapal, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nh.Thariq Mahmood Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

G.Nagasundaram, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.a.Patchiappane Vs The Director

Muthulakshmi, Vs the Chairman

M.v.Paulraj Vs the Director of School

M/S.Medopharm Vs the Special Director