Disposed

V.Chitrarasu v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Apr 2015WP/9929/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the proposed laying of a road in a Vari canal. The Court noted the matter was on hold due to the petitioner's representation and directed the authorities to dispose of the representation within one month. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to expediously dispose of the petitioner's representation within one month and to decide on further work based on it.

V.Chitrarasu Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 07.04.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice and

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Writ Petition No. 9929 of 2015
and M.P. No.1 of 2015
V. Chitrarasu .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
2. The Tahsildar
Jayakondam Taluk
Jayakondam, Ariyalur District.
3. The Block Development Officer
T.Pazur Panchayat Union
Ariyalur District.
4. The President
Ulliyakudi Panchayat
Ulliyakudi, Udaiyarpalayam Taluk
Ariyalur District. .. Respondents
---

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action to remove the stones which is filled up for laying the road by the 4^th respondent and also to forbear the 4^th respondent from laying the road in the Vari (canal) comprised in Survey Nos.274, 275 and 276, Ulliyakudi Village, Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶8

--For Petitioner : Mr. S. Vijayan For Respondents : Mr. S.T.S. Murthi Govt. Pleader. --O R D E R (Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶9

The petitioner, who is stated to be a resident of Ulliyakudi Village, Udaiyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyarlur District, alleges that a

¶10

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

¶11

road is proposed to be laid in the canal namely, Vari comprised in Survey Nos. 274, 275, and 276. The Vari is stated to be serving the village for cultivation and irrigation purposes and it is alleged that the proposed road would cause an impediment. On our query, the learned counsel states that the petitioner is located near the new road, which is going to be laid.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the road was being laid by the Panchayat, but on the representation of the petitioner, the matter has been put on hold to examine the same, though raw materials for the road are lying at the site, which have been downloaded.

¶13

It, thus, appears that an element of private interest lies on account of the location of the petitioner. But, be that as it may, the respondents-authorities are in any case seized of the representation of the petitioner and put the matter on hold. This representation would be expeditiously disposed of, not later than one month from today and depending on the fate of the representation, further work may or may not be done for laying the road.

¶14

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2015 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
Copies to;
1. The District Collector
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
2. The Tahsildar
Jayakondam Taluk Jayakondam, Ariyalur District.
3. The Block Development Officer
T.Pazur Panchayat Union, Ariyalur District.
4. The President
Ulliyakudi Panchayat
Ulliyakudi, Udaiyarpalayam Taluk
Ariyalur District.
+1 cc to M/s.S.vijayan, Advocate,SR.19416
+1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.19114.
ppa(co)
krd 22/4 W.P. No. 9929 of 2015

¶15

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

V.Chitrarasu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Chitrarasu 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

R.Gobika, 300/183 II Floor, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Dr.G.R.Ragunathan Vs the Director of Town & Country

S.Jayachandran, S/O.S.M. Vs the Principal Secretary to

A.Raja Vs The Collector

A.Rangasamy Vs The District Collector

C.M.Sivababu, President Vs The State of Tamilnadu