Dismissed

R.Radhakrishnan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC15 Mar 2016WP/19413/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for water supply connection dismissed. Court ruled conversion of convertible water body for other purposes unauthorized under Full Bench judgment. Petitioner's claim for patta doubtful. Additional order directed refund of 15,000 Rupees remitted after deduction of administrative charges.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to respondents to consider refund of remitted sum within four weeks.

R.Radhakrishnan Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 15.03.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.19413 of 2015

¶6

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

R.Radhakrishnan ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation Coimbatore

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner West Zone, Coimbatore City City Municipal Corporation Coimbatore ...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to 2nd respondent proceedings in Roc. No.4927/ 2015/WS4 (W) dated 16.6.2015 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide new water supply connection to the petitioner residence at No.36,4^th Street Gokulam Colony Papanaicken Pudur Coimbatore-641 041.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.J.Sathyanarayana Rao

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner has applied for water connection for the property said to be in his possession.

¶18

The counter affidavit filed by the respondent show that the land has been classified as Kuttai poromboke. In fact the petitioner's application for water supply connection has not

¶19

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

¶20

been rejected but it is stated that the petitioner has been directed to produce patta in respect of the property in question. In the light of the recent judgment of Full Bench of this Court in T.K.Shanmugam vs. The State of Tamilnadu & another, reported in 2015, W.L.R.1029 to which I'm a party, the question of converting a water body for any other purpose is wholly unauthorised, illegal and cannot be done.

¶21

Therefore, the petitioner's claim for patta itself is highly doubtful. Hence the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

After the above order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the respondents and the petitioner may be permitted to get back the money. In the light of the said submission, the petitioner is directed to request the respondents to refund the money which shall be considered and the amount can be refunded after deduction of administrative charges if any within four weeks from the date such request is made, enclosing copy of this order.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶24

The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation Coimbatore

¶25

2.The Assistant Commissioner West Zone, Coimbatore City City Municipal Corporation Coimbatore +1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, sr.16680 +1 cc to Mr.J.Sathyanarayana Prasad, Advocate, sr.16396

¶26

Writ Petition No.19413 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶27

vsn co kra 24.03.2016

¶28

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

R.Radhakrishnan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Radhakrishnan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Mallan, President Vs The Deputy Registrar of

R.Parthiban Vs P.S.Elumalai

M/s.Booma Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Provident Fund

The Management of Vs Thiru. M.Angu Naidu

V.Ranjith Vs Praveen Ranjan IPS

Mrs.Prabha Padmanabhan Vs The Revenue Divisional