Disposed

Mrs.G.Bharathi, v. The Collector

Madras HC7 Sept 2016WP/17365/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In re G. Bharathi vs Paid Officers, the Writ Court directed the Tahsildar to inspect alleged encroachment in a water channel within one month. Based on the report, the Collector was directed to pass eviction orders within two months after notice to all concerned, then disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directions were given for an inspection by the Tahsildar within one month and orders by the Collector within two months thereafter.

Mrs.G.Bharathi, Vs The Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.09.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P. No.17365 of 2016

¶7

G.Bharathi .. Petitioner -vs1.The Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpet Division, Kancheepuram District. 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 4.The Executive Engineer, Palar Lower Drainage Division, Kancheepuram District. 5.Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District. 6.P.Munusamy 7.S.Veeraragavan 8.A.Pakkirmathi 9.P.Raji 10.M.Saravanan (1^st Ward Member), 3/563, S.S.R.Nagar 1^st street, Melakottaiyur, Mambakkam, Chennai-127. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to evict the encroachers in the water channel including the respondents 6 to 10 on the Survey No.128A/20 in Mambakkam village, Thiruporur Taluk within the prescribed time frame fixed by this Court.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian Govt. Pleader for R1 to R5 Mr.D.Senthil kumar for R6 to R10

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, it appears that there is some element of personal lis between the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 10 and the said respondents are stated to have filed writ petition against the petitioner in W.P.No.7025 of 2013 relating to the alleged misdeeds of the petitioner. Be that as it may, in the present petition, the petitioner alleges against the private respondents that they have encroached on the water channel located in S.No.128A/20 in Mambakkam village, Thiruporur Taluk and despite the District Collector having directed the Tahsildar to carry out an inspection, nothing has happened.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, we direct that an inspection be carried out by the Tahsildar/respondent No.3 within one month of the receipt of copy of this order and based on the report of the Tahsildar, the District Collector/respondent No.1 will pass orders within a period of two months' thereafter, after notice to all concerned.

¶15

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶16

-s/d-

¶17

Assistant Registrar

¶18

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶19

bbr

¶20

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

¶21

To
1.The Collector,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chengalpet Division,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruporur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
4.The Executive Engineer,
Palar Lower Drainage Division,
Kancheepuram District.
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Thirumalavan Advocate sr 50690
+1 cc to Mr.D.Senthil Kumar Advocate sr 17365
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr51191
W.P.No.17365 of 2016
aa22/09/2016

¶22

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

Mrs.G.Bharathi, v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.G.Bharathi, v. The 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

Susi Ganesan Vs v. Elango

M/S.Navaneethaam Traders Vs Smt.Rosary Krishnamurthy

National Highways Authority Vs Larsen and Toubro Limited

K.N.Krishnamoorthy Vs The District Collector

Kaariappan Vs The District Collector

V.C.Ajeethkumar Vs the Indian Oil Corporation