Disposed

Mr.R.Venkataraman v. The Commissioner

Madras HC18 Jan 2017WP/1151/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to remove encroachments on water bodies. The court recorded acknowledgealment that the authorities had sanctioned removal works, issued notices, and committed to completing the task within three months for certain villages and handing over specific lands to the HR & CE Department. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondents bound by commitment to complete removal action within three months.

Mr.R.Venkataraman Vs The Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.01.2017

¶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.1151 of 2017

¶7

R.Venkataraman ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Commissioner, Land Administration, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Secretary, Revenue Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Secretary, Public Works Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 4. The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Tourism, Culture and Hindu Religious and Endowments, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 5. The Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Cultural Endowments, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 6. The District Collector, The District Collectorate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶8

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

¶9

The District Revenue Officer, The District Collectorate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶10

The Asst. Director – Survey and Land Reocrds,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
9. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District,
Thanjavur.
10.The Thasildar,
Thiruvidaimarudhur Taluk,
Taluk Office,
Thiruvidaimarudhur,
Thanjavur District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to remove the encroachment on the water bodies in
Vannikudi village and water bodies comprised in Survey Nos.207,
208, 210, 211, 212 and 222 of Pandanallur village, formerly
Kumbakonam Taluk, now Thiruvidaimarudhur Taluk, Thanjavur
District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3 & R6 to R10
Mr.M.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader(HR & CE)
for R4 & R5

¶12

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

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner for removal of the encroachments in the water bodies in Vannikudi village appears to have been partly redressed atleast to the extent that as per the learned Additional Government Pleader, proposal for removal of the encroachments and de-silting has been accepted and sanction obtained. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Pleader that notices are in process of being issued

¶14

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

¶15

to the encroachers and the exercise will be completed within a period of three months.

¶16

The aforesaid statement is taken on record and the respondent authorities shall remain bound by the same.

¶17

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the aforesaid proposal is applicable to the water bodies in Vannikudi village. But there is also a grievance in respect of the water bodies comprised in s.Nos.207, 208, 210, 211, 212 and 222 of Pandanallur village. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that even those lands have been surveyed, but they belong to the HR & CE Department and thus, necessary action is proposed to be taken accordingly to hand over the same to the HR & CE Department within a month and the HR & CE Department will commence and complete the action in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter.

¶18

The aforesaid statement is also taken on record and the respondent authorities shall remain bound by the same. 5. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bbr To 1. The Commissioner, Land Administration, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Secretary, Revenue Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Secretary, Public Works Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶19

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

¶20

The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Tourism, Culture and Hindu Religious and Endowments,

¶21

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 5. The Commissioner, The Hindu Religious and Cultural Endowments, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 6. The District Collector, The District Collectorate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 7. The District Revenue Officer, The District Collectorate, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 8. The Assistant Director – Survey and Land Reocrds, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶22

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶23

10.The Thasildar, Thiruvidaimarudhur Taluk, Taluk Office, Thiruvidaimarudhur, Thanjavur District.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.3419 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.3534

¶25

W.P.No.1151 of 2017 UG(CO) CA(27/01/2017)

¶26

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

Mr.R.Venkataraman v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.R.Venkataraman 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.Palanichamy, S/o.v.Perappan, Vs The District Collector

Mani, S/o.Jadaiya Gounder Vs The District Collector

M.Sridharan, S/o.Muthumalai Vs The Commissioner, Corporation

Credai Chennai Vs Government of India

Hyder Ali Tippu Sulthan Dhakni Vs The Chairman

V.B.R.Menon, Advocate, Vs The District Collector