Disposed

S. Arokianathan v. Revenue Tasildar

Madras HC25 Apr 2016WP/13913/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus to demolish illegal construction blocking access to Lions Colony. The court, noting that notices had already been issued but no action taken, directed the official respondents to proceed with notices and decisions within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents to proceed with notices and consequential decisions within six weeks.

S. Arokianathan Vs Revenue Tasildar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN W.P. No.13913 of 2016

¶5

S. Arokianathan ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.
1. The Revenue Tahsildar
Coonoor
Nilgiris District
2. The Panchayat President
Peratti, Coonoor
Nilgiris District
3. The Panchayat Vice President
Peratti, Coonoor
Nilgiris District
4. Victor
5. Prabu
6. Felix
7. Siva
8. Sujitha
9. Stanley
10. Therasa ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Revenue Tahsildar, Coonoor, the first respondent herein, to demolish the illegal construction blocking the access to Lions Colony, Coonoor.

¶8

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

¶9

For petitioner : Mr. N. Surya Senthil For R1 : Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R. Ravichandran

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(delivered by SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶12

Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the first respondent. Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3. With consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to demolish the illegal construction, blocking the access to Lions Colony, Coonoor.

¶14

Taking note of the representations dated 27 October 2015 and 12 January 2016 made by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, has already initiated action, as is evident from the notice dated 09 February 2016 issued to the private respondents, calling upon them to appear in person and establish that they have not made any encroachment, as alleged by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the said notice, no further action has been taken and the encroachment still continues, causing obstruction and nuisance in the common pathway.

¶15

Be that as it may, at this stage, we are not inclined to adjudicate the dispute. However, on the request of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, we direct the official respondents to proceed with the notice and take consequential decision, as per law, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. Costs made easy. Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

cad

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Revenue Tahsildar Coonoor, Nilgiris District

¶24

The Panchayat President Peratti, Coonoor,

¶25

Nilgiris District 3. The Panchayat Vice President Peratti, Coonoor Nilgiris District.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.N. Surya Senthil, Advocate, S.R.No.25351 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.25870 W.P. No.13913 of 2016

¶27

RSY(CO) CA(10/05/2016)

¶28

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

S. Arokianathan v. Revenue Tasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Arokianathan v. Revenue Tasildar

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

Jayalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

The Director of Survey and Vs R. Sakthi ( under suspension)

A.L.S.Vadivel, Vs Corporation of Chennai

A.Maheshkumar Vs The Branch Manager

Mr.Kannappan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.Balakrishnan Vs Managing Director