Dismissed

C.Krishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Sept 2016WP/3995/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandate to regularize petitioners' unauthorized bungalows and flats on public land. The Court noted the area was not a recognized slum and that rehabilitation would occur elsewhere. The larger public necessity of removing encroachments near the Adyar River oversaw the claim.

What did the court decide?

Petition for issuance of writ of mandamus to regularize dwelling was dismissed with no costs.

C.Krishnan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.No.3995 of 2016

¶7

C.Krishnan
2. S.Muruganandam
3. S.Arumugam
4. M.Panjacharam
5. L.Raji
6. V.Satish
7. S.Ramesh
8. Rajendran.D
9. V.Kasiammal
10.A.Anjali
11.P.Susila Mary
12.D.Latha
13.P.Ranganathan
14.K.Mani
15.K.Ramasundaram
16.J.Dayalan
17.T.Manickavel
18.A.Karunakaran
19.C.Manickam
20.K.Rajendran
21.M.Nagarajan
22.K.Govindan
23.E.Kannadasan
24.A.Mariappan
25.K.Lakshmi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Collectorate
Chennai – 600 001.

¶8

The Public Works Department by its Chief Engineer Kamarajar Promenade PWD Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane Chennai – 600 005.

¶9

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

¶10

The Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board

¶11

rep. by its Chairman Kamaraj Salai Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

The Corporation of Chennai rep. by its Commissioner Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶13

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai – 600 005. .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 to regularize the dwelling of the petitioners in the existing site at Surya Nagar, Kottur, Chennai – 600 085.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Vasudevan
For Responden : Mr.M.K.Subramanian
Government Pleader
for respondents 1, 2 and
5
Mr.S.Prabhu
for 3 rd respondent
Mr.K.Soundarajan
for 4 th respondent
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice)

¶16

These inhabitants are near the Adyar River and the prayer made is for directing the respondents to regularize the dwelling units of the petitioners at the existing site at Surya Nagar, Kottur, Chennai.

¶17

In the course of the arguments, it emerges that the area is not recognized as slum area, though at some stage survey was done for identification. It is not as if these persons are to be rendered homeless, but they would be rehabilitated. However, the rehabilitation cannot be in the same location, but would be done at a convenient place as may be possible. The rehabilitation is taking place

¶18

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

¶19

free of cost. In fact, these are not really tenements, but bungalows and flats created on public land in an unauthorized manner. There cannot be premium to this.

¶20

If we may say, the object of rehabilitation is to see that the persons from the socially and economically weaker sections, who may not have accommodation to live and have occupied government land, may be accommodated elsewhere and not that persons enroach on them, construct multi-storied buildings and bungalows and then claim right of rehabilitation.

¶21

The larger public necessity of removing encroachments near Adyar River, which was rising from the floods last year in December, outweighs any other inconvenience. The whole city suffered because water areas and water channels have been encroached upon and this is also one such case.

¶22

We are, thus, not inclined to entertain the writ
petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.3320 of 2016 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sasi
To:
1. The District Collector
Collectorate
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Chief Engineer
Public Works Department
Kamarajar Promenade
PWD Estate, Chepauk, Triplicane
Chennai – 600 005.
3. The Chairman
Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board
Kamaraj Salai
Chennai – 600 009.
4. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶23

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

¶24

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk Chennai – 600 005.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.S. Vasudevan, Advocate, S.R.No.55732 +1cc to Mr.S. Prabhu, Advocate, S.R.No.56367 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.56112

KSJ(CO)

EU(04/10/2016)

W.P.No.3995 of 2016

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

C.Krishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Krishnan 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

C.M.Dhinakaran Vs Mrs S.Annapoona

R. Venkataraman Vs S.T. Sundari

S. Thamizharasan Vs M/S Crescent Auto Repairs and

S.Selvi Vs The Secretary to the

Mrs.Kursheed Sharfudeen Vs The Inspector General of

A.Nakkeeran Vs The State Mines and Mineral