Disposed

Baskar Babu, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Dec 2016WP/43802/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner complained of encroachment on a 40 feet wide road adjoining his plot. The court directed the Tahsildar to inspect the site and demarcate the area within 15 days, ordering the Corporation to take action if unauthorized constructions are found within two months thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to inspect and demarcate site within 15 days; Corporation to take action on unauthorized construction within two months thereafter.

Baskar Babu, Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P.No.43802 of 2016

¶7

Baskar Babu
Rep.by the Sister cum Power of Attorney
Mrs.M.Latha
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Assistant Engineer
Corporation of Chennai
Zonal Office, No.123
Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam
Chennai – 600 087.
3. The Tahsildar
Koyambedu Taluk
Chennai.
(R3 impleaded by order dated
21.12.2016 made in this writ petition) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
to take action on the petitioner's representation dated
3.10.2016 and to take action on the encroachment made in 40 Feet
road situate at Varalakshmi Nagar 3 rd Street (DDTP vide LPDM.
82/73), Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095, in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vasanth
For Respondents : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran
Standing Counsel
for respondents 1 and 2

¶8

Mr.M.K.Subramanian Government Pleader for 3^rd respondent

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

On request of learned counsel for the respondents, the Tahsildar, Koyambedu, is impleaded as the third respondent. Memo of parties be amended accordingly.

¶13

The petitioner is the owner of Plot No.19, comprised in S.Nos.127/1, 127/2 Part, 127/4 Part, 127/7 and 128/1 situate at Varalakshmi Nagar 3^rd Street, Varalakshmi Nagar, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai – 600 095 and the layout is approved. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the approved plan on the southern side of his plot there is a 40 Feet wide road shown, but now that road has been encroached and construction has been made as per the photographs filed along with the typed set.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid position, the third respondent is directed to carry out an inspection of the site and demarcate the area within fifteen days of the receipt of the order and thereafter, if any unauthorized construction is found, action will be taken by the first two respondents in accordance with law after notice to all concerned within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

¶15

The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

sasi

¶17

To:

¶18

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Building Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Assistant Engineer Corporation of Chennai Zonal Office, No.123 Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam Chennai – 600 087.

¶19

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

¶20

The Tahsildar Koyambedu Taluk Chennai.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.P.Vasanth, Advocate, S.R.No.74367

¶22

W.P.No.43802 of 2016

¶23

RSY(CO) CA(23/12/2016)

¶24

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

Baskar Babu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baskar Babu, 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

M.Chitrarasu Vs the District Collector

A.Anandan Vs Vikram Kapur

M. George @ S.George Raj Vs The Managing Director

M.Velmurugan, Advocate Vs State of Tamil Nadu

U.Jaya Lakshmi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs The Collector