Disposed

Kaariappan v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Sept 2016WP/5712/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Tahsildar must inspect the site within a month to verify allegations by the petitioner regarding encroachment by the third respondent (Madharaman) in the Annapilar Canal, and take necessary action if verified.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to inspect the encroachment site within one month and take action within two months after notice if allegations are verified.

Kaariappan Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.09.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P. No.5712 of 2016

¶7

Kaariappan .. Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur. 2.The Tahsildar, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District. 3.Madharaman 4.The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai. 5.The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai. .. Respondents (Respondent Nos.4 & 5 suo-motu impleaded as per the order dt. 7.6.2016)

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made by the third respondent including the concrete building in the Annapilar Canal running through the Kannanmedu village, Thalaikadu, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian Govt. Pleader for R1,2,4 & 5 Mr.S.Nagarajan for R3

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

The writ petition is really a counter blast of the petitioner against respondent No.3, who had filed the writ petition being W.P.No.26701 of 2015 in respect of the encroachment by the petitioner. Now the petitioner states that respondent No.3 has equally encroached and constructed a concrete building in Annapilar canal and curtailed free flow of water. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.2/Tahsildar is required to carry out an inspection of the site within a maximum period of one month of the receipt of a copy of this order to verify the allegation of the petitioner and if the allegation is found to be correct, to take action in accordance with law, after notice to all concerned within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

¶14

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Asst. Registrar.
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
bbr
To
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvarur District,
Thiruvarur.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk,
Thiruvarur District.
3.Madharaman
4.The Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.

¶15

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

¶16

5.The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶17

Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶18

+1 CC to Govt., Pleader, Sr.No.51187

¶19

W.P.No.5712 of 2016

¶20

NR (CO) MD : 21/09/2016

¶21

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

Kaariappan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaariappan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susi Ganesan Vs v. Elango

M/S.Navaneethaam Traders Vs Smt.Rosary Krishnamurthy

National Highways Authority Vs Larsen and Toubro Limited

K.N.Krishnamoorthy Vs The District Collector

V.C.Ajeethkumar Vs the Indian Oil Corporation

S.Periasamy Vs The Tahsildar