Disposed

R.Sridhar, v. The Divisional Engineer

Madras HC16 Dec 2016WP/43398/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for the 3rd respondent to act on his representation regarding alleged encroachment on his property. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation on merits and pass orders within eight weeks, disposing of the petition without adjudicating the underlying land dispute merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2016 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

R.Sridhar, Vs The Divisional Engineer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.43398 of 2016

¶6

R.Sridhar ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.
1. The Divisional Engineer,
Chennai City Roads Division,
Chennai 600 015.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan,
Division IV,
Chennai 600 016.

¶8

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance Office, Tambaram Sub Division, Chennai 600 042. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Sankar Ramasamy

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajeswaran

¶12

Special Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action on his representation dated 01.12.2016.

¶15

According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property situated at Velachery Main Road, Medavakkam, Chennai, measuring an extent of 615 sq. ft. together with building thereon bearing Plot No.138, approved by LMDA/DTP No.263/1973, comprised in Punjai Survey No.399/3, Patta No.2420,

¶16

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

¶17

as per patta New Survey No.399/1A2 of Medavakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk. Originally, Plot No.138 was measuring an extent of 2420 sq. ft. and subsequently, a portion of 1825 sq. ft. of land in Plot No.138 was acquired by the Highways Department in the year 1986 itself. Thereafter, the balance 615 sq. ft. of land comprised in Punjai Survey No.399/3 was purchased by the petitioner from one P.Dharmarajan, and the same was registered as Document No.2818/2003, dated 20.06.2003 with the office of the District Registrar, Chennai South.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that patta has been issued in his name by the Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram in Patta No.2420, dated 29.06.2005 and the patta new Survey Number is 399/1A2 of Medavakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. Thereafter, the petitioner borrowed loan from the Bank and constructed a building thereon, obtained electricity connection, water connection and is paying property tax to the competent authority regularly. While so, the 3^rd respondent issued a notice under Rule 28(2)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, dated 15.02.2016 stating that the petitioner encroached upon a portion of the Highways land to an extent of 146.4 sq. mtrs. in Survey No.399 at Medavakkam Village and that it should be removed within seven days from the date of receipt of notice.

¶19

After receipt of the 3^rd respondent's impugned notice, the petitioner removed the encroachments on the Highway land in front of his building and handed over the encumbrance free site to the 3^rd respondent herein. As per the measurement mentioned in the impugned notice dated 15.02.2016, the 3^rd respondent made some marking in front of his patta land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the workers under the control of the 3^rd respondent are trying to extend the drain-cum-footpath construction work by intruding in his patta land. Immediately, the petitioner went to the 3^rd respondent's Office and explained the facts of the construction work in front of his building and gave a detailed representation on 01.12.2016. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents and having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's grievance would be redressed if his representation dated 01.12.2016 is directed to be considered by the respondents, within a stipulated period.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs

¶23

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

¶24

the 3^rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2016 on merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.37257 of 2016 is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar

¶28

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

To:

¶31

The Divisional Engineer,
Chennai City Roads Division,
Chennai 600 015.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan,
Division IV,
Chennai 600 016.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Maintenance Office,
Tambaram Sub Division,
Chennai 600 042.
+1cc to Mr.Sankar Ramasamy, Advocate, S.R.No.73357
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.73798
RJ(CO)
md(31/01/2017)
W.P.No.43398 of 2016

¶32

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

R.Sridhar, v. The Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sridhar, v. The Divisional Engineer

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

S.Sivaraj, Vs Mr.Glastin David

S.Ramasamy, Proprietor, Vs S.George

G.Louisa Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Sairabanu Mohamed Rafi, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Dr.U.Shanmugam, S/o.M.Uttai, Vs The District Collector

N.Shahima, Vs The Director General of