Disposed

Smt. Neela v. The Commissioner of

Madras HC22 Mar 2016WP/10269/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation concerning an alleged attempt to construct a road on his private land. The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing within two weeks and ordered maintenance of the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the representation, pass orders on merits after a personal hearing within two weeks, and maintain the status quo.

Smt. Neela Vs The Commissioner of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 22.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.10269 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.9102 of 2016

¶8

Neela .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner of Corporation,
Corporation of Chennai,
Corporation Office, Ribbon Buildings,
Chennai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner /
Executive Engineer,
Zone-14, Corporation of Chennai,
Puzuthivakkam, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Division-190, Corporation of Chennai,
Pallikaranai, Chennai.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
Division-190, Corporation of Chennai,
Pallikaranai, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to dispose of the representation made on 10.03.2016 and forbearing the Respondents 1 to 4 from laying road in the petitioner's property comprised in survey No.151/2A2B2 and Patta and Chitta bearing No.11794 at Plot Old No.17, New No.1, Chitti Babu Nagar Extension, Pallikaranai, Chennai-100.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Vimal B.Crimson For Respondents : Mr.R.V.Selvakumar

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.Vimal B.Crimson, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.V.Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, accepting notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 10.03.2016. In the representation petitioner has stated that there is an attempt made by the officials of the Corporation to form a road in his private patta land. In order to afford an opportunity to the respondents to file a counter, the matter was listed today. Today, the officials have not given any written instructions to their standing counsel.

¶15

3. In the light of the same, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2016, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the road has not been formed till date. In the light of the said submission, the status quo which is prevailing as on date shall be maintained till orders are passed by the second respondent in terms of the above direction.

¶17

5.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

-s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

vs/kpr

¶23

¶24

1.The Commissioner of Corporation, Corporation of Chennai,

¶25

Corporation Office, Ribbon Buildings,

¶26

Chennai.

¶27

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

¶28

2.The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Engineer, Zone-14, Corporation of Chennai, Puzuthivakkam, Chennai.

¶29

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Division-190, Corporation of Chennai, Pallikaranai, Chennai.

¶30

4.The Assistant Engineer, Division-190, Corporation of Chennai, Pallikaranai, Chennai.

¶31

+1 cc to Mr.P.V.Selvakumar Advocate sr.18157
W.P.No.10269 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.9102 of 2016
aa01/04/2016

¶32

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

Smt. Neela v. The Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neela v. The Commissioner of

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

D.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chief Election Officer

R.Mythili Vs The Deputy Collector (L.a)

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs Vs The Principal Secretary to

Mr.R.Arjunan, Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/

O.Gunalan, Vs The President

M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Vs The Chairman and Managing