Disposed

Chinna Mari, v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Aug 2016WP/22730/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order allowing the laying of a 20-foot road. The court directed authorities to conduct a survey before laying the road, offering compensation if private land is covered, or removal of encroachments if found.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to lay the road after survey. If private land is covered, ensure compensation; if encroachment found, remove it.

Chinna Mari, Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 8.8.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶7

W.P.No.22730 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.19432 & 19433 of 2016

¶8

Chinna Mari Petitioner Versus 1 The District Collector Salem District Salem.

¶9

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Sankari Salem District. 3 The Tahsildar Sankari Salem District. 4 The Executive Officer Thevur Town Panchayat Sankari Taluk Salem District. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 24.06.2016 made in Na.Ka.No.219/2016 on the file of the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.F.No.167/10 Thevur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District pursuant to the judgment in O.S.No.488 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Prabakar For RR1 to 3 : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Special Govt. Pleader For R4 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi Govt. Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

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

¶15

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 24.06.2016 made in Na.Ka.No.219/2016 on the file of the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.F.No.167/10 Thevur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District pursuant to the judgment in O.S.No.488 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the properties in Survey Nos.166/14 P.Hec. 0.16.0, 167/10 measuring an extent of P.Hec.0.06.5 and S.F.No.168/14 measuring an extent of P.Hec.0.23.0 lands and other lands in Thevur Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District on the basis of a partition deed in Doc.No.936/1988 and the revenue records stood in his name. His further case is that his lands were sought to be acquired for the purpose of widening the existing road and while other adjacent land owners had gifted their lands to the Panchayat for the purpose of widening the road viz., laying a 20 feet road, he challenged the acquisition by filing a suit in O.S.No.488 of 2004 and obtained an order of injunction in his favour and the appeal filed as against such judgment and decree in A.S.No.6 of 2012 was also dismissed, but, somehow, without notice to him, the patta standing in his name was transferred as if it was gifted to the Panchayat and based on such transaction, the petitioner is denoted as encroacher and sought to be evicted and hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that it is for the respondents-authorities to proceed with laying of the 20 feet road, after conducting a survey and if any private land belonging to the petitioner is covered under acquisition, he may be suitably compensated, or else, there would be no order as to payment of compensation. On survey, if the authorities find that any land is encroached, it is also open to the respondents-authorities to remove the encroachment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(V)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

ssk.

¶22

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

¶23

To:

¶24

1 The District Collector
Salem District Salem.
2 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Sankari Salem District.
3 The Tahsildar
Sankari Salem District.
4 The Executive Officer
Thevur Town Panchayat
Sankari Taluk Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.R. Prabakar, Advocate, S.R.No.45004
+1cc to Mr.P. Rajalakshmi, Advocate, S.R.No.45142
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.45060
SCD(CO)
EU(11/08/2016)
W.P.No.22730 of 2016

¶25

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

Chinna Mari, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinna Mari, v. The District 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

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs S.Krishnan

K.Settu Vs The District Collector

M.PoornaSundari Vs The District Collector

D.Premakumari, Vs The District Collector

The Chennai Port Trust, Vs M/S. Express Clearing Agency

M/S.Mrf Ltd., Vs the Presiding Officer