Remanded

K.Ashok Kumar, v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Sept 2016WP/14941/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding temple encroachment on public land, the Court directed the District Collector to decide on land allotment or temple removal, mandating parking and noise pollution compliance if the temple remains.

What did the court decide?

Dropped the order for removal; directed the District Collector to decide on allotment or removal of the third respondent temple, ensuring parking and noise pollution norms are met.

K.Ashok Kumar, Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 15.09.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN

¶7

W.P.No.14941 of 2016

¶8

K.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner Versus 1. The District Collector, Tiuppur District, Tiruppur. 2.The Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, Udumalpet. 3.Shirdi Sri Anandha Sai Public Charitable Trust, Udumalpet, rep. By its Chairman Er.K.Natarajan No.51/5, Mariappa Layout, Thillai Nagar, Udumalpet. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to remove the encroachment made in Municipal land in Thillai Nagar of Ward No.30 of Udumalpet Municipality by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 13.07.2015.

¶10

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The second respondent has complied with the onus of passing the requisite order.

¶13

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

¶14

3.The counter affidavit shows that apart from the third respondent temple, there are four other temples. On our query, we are informed that the other temples have been in existence for more than a period of 30 years or 60 years. As far as the third respondent temple is concerned, it has been in existence for about five years.

¶15

The present petition is really concerned only with the third respondent temple and not with the other temples which are stated to be quite old. Since the area is public land, either there should be an allocation/allotment of the land to the third respondent or the temple would have to be removed. Insofar as the issue of allotment of land to third respondent is concerned, we are informed that the second Bench issued directions on a petition filed by the third respondent, which is under consideration by the first respondent/District Collector. Learned counsel for the second respondent states that the issue of regularisation can only be taken up by the first respondent or the Municipal Council itself, and not by the second respondent.

¶16

5.We are thus of the view that since the matter pertains to public land, the direction of the second Bench should be complied with by the first respondent/District Collector and the question of allotment decided, failing which the order already passed by the second respondent would have to be given effect to. We also make it clear that if the temple has to stay on the land, then necessary provisions have to be made for Car Parking and Prevention of Noise Pollution (as per the norms laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).

¶17

We close the proceedings with the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

The District Collector, Tiuppur District, Tiruppur.

¶22

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

¶23

2.The Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, Udumalpet.

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.T.Gopinath,advocate,sr.52504.

¶25

+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.52388

¶26

+1 cc to M/s.A.S.thambuswamy,advocate,sr.52258

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.N.Thiagarajan,advocate,sr.52420

¶28

ctr(co)
krd 29/9
W.P.No.14941 of 2016

¶29

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

K.Ashok Kumar, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ashok Kumar, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakashchand Jain, Vs Mr.Hukmichand Jain

V.Vasanthakumar Vs The Secretary

Mr. Vijay Pai Vs Max Trade Limited

Syed Samlullah(Deceased) Vs Syed Sanuallah(Deceased)

Rm.Andiappan @ Lakshmanan Vs Indian Bank

M/S.Aravind Laboratories Vs Modicare