Disposed

P.Gayathri Devi, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Dec 2016WP/42342/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus directing municipal and revenue authorities to act on a representation regarding alleged encroachment on a common road by private individuals. The Court directed the respondents to demarcate the area and remove any encroachments within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to demarcate property and remove encroachments within two months after giving notice.

P.Gayathri Devi, Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶7

W.P. No.42342 of 2016
P.Gayathri Devi .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur,
Chennai.
3.Mani Murugan
4.Veera Mageswari .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider and pass orders on petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2016.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for R-1 : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, Spl.G.P. for R-2

¶10

- - - *
      O R D E R

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by R.Mahadevan, J.)

¶12

The allegation of the petitioner is that the third and fourth respondents have encroached upon the common road situate adjoining to the 24 feet road at 16 & 17, Epinesar Avenue, Mugappair West, Chennai, of an extent of 480 sq.ft., which is

¶13

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

¶14

being utilised for the general use of the residents therein. As against the said encroachment, the petitioner has made a representation dated 08.04.2016 to the authorities, which yielded no result. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

2.Upon instructions, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that necessary action would be taken on the representation of the petitioner.

¶16

3.The first and second respondents are, thus, directed to take appropriate action for demarcating the property and encroachments, if any found, shall be removed after due notice to the petitioner as well as the third and fourth respondents. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶17

3.Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai.
2.The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur,
Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.S.Subramanian Advocate sr 71565
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr 71241
W.P.No.42342 of 2016
rv(co)
aa21/12/2016

¶18

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

P.Gayathri Devi, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Gayathri Devi, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Coimbatore Consumer Cause Vs Mr.S.K.Prabakar, Ias.

N.Ramalingam Vs The commissioner

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years Vs The District Collector

M/s Sidharth Heights Vs The Member Secretary

V.Govindhasamy, Vs The District Collector

M.Murugan, S/o.Mr.Muthu, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu