Dismissed

P.T.Ramakrishnan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC26 Apr 2016WP/593/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging alleged road encroachment. Court examined respondent report stating land acquisition proceedings were abandoned, meaning the land remained unauthorized for widening and no encroachment existed on government land. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for removal of encroachments was dismissed.

P.T.Ramakrishnan Vs The Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.No.593 of 2016

¶6

P.T.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan and Development Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. The District Revenue Officer/ Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Zone-13, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. 4.The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Office, Bharathidasan Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078.

¶7

The Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk Office, 100 Feet Road, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. 6. Ramaraj ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.9.2014 and thereby directing the first respondent to keep and maintain the 50 feet 3^rd Main Road, Velachery, Chennai600 042 after surveying and measuring the road thereby removing all encroachments made therein, so as to enable the public to utilise the same free from encumbrance.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy For Respondents : Mr.K.Soundararajan for R1 & R3 Mr.N.Sampath for R2 Mr.STS.Moorthy Government Pleader assisted by Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, Additional Government Pleader & Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Government Advocate for R4 & R5

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

The plea of the petitioner was that the land was acquired for extension of the road from 20 feet to 50 feet and despite that, now private respondent No.6 has encroached that area.

¶14

The report filed by respondent No.3 in paragraph 10 states as under:-

¶15

“10. I submit that to form a 50 feet road continuously, in continuation of the road as per the layout approved vide LPDM/110/64, the Government initiated proceedings to acquire the lands in Survey No.438/1 (Part) by issuing Notifications under Sec.4(1) of Land Acquisition Act published on 12.02.1975 vide G.O.Ms.No.64, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 17^th January, 1975. Subsequently, the Government has not proceeded with the Land Acquisition proceedings and, therefore, the said lands were not acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying the 50 feet wide Road. I submit that, in view of the above said facts, the Road is only 20 Feet wide and not encroached by the 6^th Respondent as alleged by the petitioner.”

¶16

The aforesaid, thus, shows that the land was actually never acquired and there cannot be any question of increasing the road width to 50 feet. That being the position, there is no encroachment by private respondent No.6 on the Government land.

¶17

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

bbr

¶23

¶24

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 2. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan and Development Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. The District Revenue Officer/ Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Zone-13, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. 4. The Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk Office, Bharathidasan Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078. 5. The Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk Office, 100 Feet Road, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. +1cc to Mr.N.Sampath, Advocate, S.R.No.25950 +1cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate, S.R.No.26554 +1cc to Mr.R.Munuswamy, Advocate, S.R.No.26160 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.26028

¶25

W.P.No.593 of 2016 PA(CO) CA(11/05/2016)

¶26

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

P.T.Ramakrishnan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Ramakrishnan 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

P. Senthil Kumar Vs The Secretary to Government

Mr. S. Parthipan Vs The Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral

Rajasekaran Vs The Chief Secretary

P.Ganapathy Vs The Chief Secretary

M/S.Selkan Consultng Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S.Aircel Cellular Ltd.

M/S.Csg Holding Company Ltd., Vs Saint-Gobain Glass France