Disposed

R.Ramesh Kumar v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Jan 2016CRP/4658/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court entertained a delayed statutory revision petition under Article 227 regarding a confirmed development plan order. The petitioner was directed to submit a revised plan within a month, remove impermissible markings, and undertake rectifications within three months, with the municipality empowered to proceed independently upon default.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall submit a revised plan within one month, remove impermissible markings, and undertake rectifications within three months. The municipality may proceed independently if the petition

R.Ramesh Kumar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.01.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

C.R.P. No.4658 of 2015
R.Ramesh Kumar .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water
Supply (MA1) Dept., Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner,
Coonoor Municipality at Coonoor,
The Nilgiris. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against G.O. (Pa) No.408/M.A.1/2015 dated 29.06.2015 passed by the first respondent confirming the order dated 22.12.2014 passed in UAC No.24/1998 by the second respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondents : Mr.M.Venugopal, Spl.G.P. For R-1 : Mr.S.Kadarkarai for R-2

¶10

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶11

The statutory revision petition filed is beyond even the extended period of time. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he seeks to comply with the notices in pari materia position as in Revision Petition No.4238 of 2015 and thus, this revision petition be entertained for that limited purpose.

¶12

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

¶13

2.After hearing the learned counsel for parties, it is agreed that the Civil Revision Petition be disposed of in the following terms:

¶14

(i) The petitioner will give a revised plan within one month of the receipt of the order copy. (ii) Whatever is found impermissible and accordingly marked by the Municipality, the same will be removed by the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner undertakes to carry out necessary rectification within three months of the intimation by the concerned authorities. (iv) Needless to say that if the petitioner fails to do so within the specified time, the Municipality may proceed on its own. 2.The Civil Revision Petition, thus, stands disposed of in terms aforesaid. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To 1.The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA1) Dept., Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality at Coonoor, The Nilgiris. C.R.P.No.4658 of 2015 kji co kra 25.01.2016

¶15

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

R.Ramesh Kumar v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramesh Kumar v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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

Gilbert Sundarraj Samuel Vs Savithiri

Mallika Vs Ravikumar

R.Arun Vs Moni

Mrs. R.Fathima, Vs The Chief Secretary

R.Prem Kumar, Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Devarajan Vs The Chief Election