Dismissed

M.K.Ravi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC27 Jan 2016WP/35658/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus to remove encroachment by a neighbour over a common road set aside as the area has been merged with the Corporation of Chennai, directing the petitioner to approach the relevant authority.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought for cannot be granted as the area has been merged with Corporation of Chennai; approach that authority instead. No costs.

M.K.Ravi Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.01.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.35658/2004 & WMP.No.2012/2016

¶6

M.K.Ravi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Ambattur Municipality
Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Tiruvallur District.
3.Mr.Selvamani .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment over the common road i.e, construction of pillars and gate by the 3rd respondent over the common road measuring 20 feet width situated at the Eastern side of Plot No.2, Sathya Nagar Layout, Koratur Village, Madras 600076 within Ambattur Municipality, Tiruvallur District.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.P.Subba Reddy For Respondents .. Mr.V.Raghupathi for R1 Mr.R.Lakshmi Naryanan for R2 Mr.S.Saravanakumar for R3

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner had filed this writ petition alleging that the 3rd respondent, who is his neighbour, has encroached the road area. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Municipality that the area has now been merged with the Corporation of Chennai.

¶12

2.Therefore, at this juncture, the relief sought for cannot be granted and the writ petition is closed, leaving it open to

¶13

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

¶14

the petitioner to approach the Corporation of Chennai, if still he has got any grievance. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶15

sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Sgl
To
1.The Commissioner
Ambattur Municipality
Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate, Tiruvallur District.
+1 CC to MR.P.Subba Reddy Advocate. SR.NO.4660
+1 CC to MR.S.Saravanakumar Advocate. SR.NO.4642
+1 CC to Govt.Pleader. SR.NO. 5027
W.P.No.35658/2004
CO-VGI
JD 02/02/2016

¶16

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

M.K.Ravi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Ravi v. the Commissioner

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

R.Kandasamy Vs R.Palanisamy IAS

A.Tamilarasan, Vs The Secretary to Government

Mallasamudhram Panchayat Union Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

Sahadevan Nair Vs the Dist.Collector

N.Radhakrisnan Vs The Assistant Engineer

N.P.Sons Constructions Vs Vinoth Kumar IFS