Disposed

T.G. Sanathanam @ v. the Director of Town

Madras HC14 Nov 2016WP(MD)/12465/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking writ of mandamus to stop unlawful development and take action against specific respondents. Court allowed withdrawal of petition with liberty to challenge the grant of technical approval, directing the third respondent to provide a copy within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw writ petition with liberty to challenge the approved technical grant; direction to third respondent to provide a copy of the approval within three weeks.

T.G. Sanathanam @ Vs the Director of Town — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Fourteenth day of November Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

WP(MD) No.12465 of 2015 and MP.(MD).NO.1 of 2015

¶6

T.G. SANTHANAM @ T.G. SANTHANA BATTAR, S/O. A.T. GOVINDA NARAYANA BATTAR, THIRUVALLARAI POST, MANNACHANALLUR TALUK,

¶7

TIRUCHIRAPALLI - 621 009. ... PETITIONER Vs

¶8

1 THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, NO. 807, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 2.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶10

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, NO. 10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT. 4 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANACHANALLUR POST, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶11

5 THE PRESIDENT MADHAVA PERUMAL VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, MANACHANALLUR PANCHAYAT UNION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶12

6 THE SUB REGISTRAR MANACHANALLUR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶13

7 SUMATHI, W/O. MURALIDHARAN,

¶14

8 GIRIJA, W/O. MARIMUTHU,

¶15

9 R. MARIMUTHU, S/O. RENGARAJ, ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

Prayer in WP.(MD).No.12465/2015: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of

¶17

Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take action against the respondents 7 to 9 for unlawful development of Rajagiri Nagar Layout and to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to stop all further developments either by way of sale or construction or any other development at Rajagiri Nagar Layout admeasuring an extent of 1,07,312 square feet and comprised in Survey Nos. 190/6, 190/7 part, 170/1, 190/7 part 170/A, 193/3 part, 170/4, 193/4 etc. situate at Madhava Perumal Kovil Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶18

ORDER : This matter having been posted under the caption “For Being Mentioner” on 14.11.2016 and upon hearing Mrs.J.Maria Roseline, Advocate for petitioner and of Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 6, the Court made the following order:

¶19

The matter is taken up for hearing today under the caption of 'Being Mentioned'.

¶20

The petitioner has filed the writ petition directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take action against the respondents 7 to 9 for unlawful development of Rajagiri Nagar Lay out.

¶21

During the course of argument, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that already approval has been granted in favour of the respondents 7 to 9.

¶22

In the above circumstances, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the approval granted for Rajagiri Nagar, since the copy of the technical approval was not furnished to the petitioner, the third respondent is directed to give a copy of the technical approval granted to the respondents 7 to 9, to the petitioner so as to to enable him to challenge the same, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1 THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, NO. 807, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 2.

¶26

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶27

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

¶28

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, NO. 10, WILLIAMS ROAD, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶29

4 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANACHANALLUR POST, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶30

5 THE PRESIDENT MADHAVA PERUMAL VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, MANACHANALLUR PANCHAYAT UNION, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶31

6 THE SUB REGISTRAR MANACHANALLUR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶32

7 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

+1. C.C. to M/S. J.MARIA ROSELINE Advocate SR.No.57377 +1cc to special Government Pleader sR.No.57765

¶34

Order Date :14/11/2016 FOR BEING MENTIONED ORDER WP(MD) No.12465 of 2015 and MP.(MD).NO.1 of 2015 Giving directions etc., as stated within. sm:MPA:SAR 1:30/11/2016:3P/10C

¶35

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

T.G. Sanathanam @ v. the Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.G. Sanathanam @ v. the Director of Town

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

Ayyankannu, Vs the District Collector

M.Perumal, Vs the District Collector

V.Pichai Ambalam, Vs the District Collector

V.Manjula Vs the Managing Director

Thangaraj Vs the Director

A.Pandi, Vs the Managing Director