Disposed

R. Easter Raj, v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Sept 2017WP(MD)/10348/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to action the illegal construction by the fifth respondent within three months after issuing notice, ensuring statutory procedure is followed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to take action against the fifth respondent's construction within three months after issuing notice, following statutory procedure.

R. Easter Raj, Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 01.09.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10348 of 2015 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2015

¶7

R.Easter Raj ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶10

2.The Commissioner,

¶11

Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Trichy.

¶12

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Palakkarai, Trichy-8.

¶13

4.The Junior Engineer, Ariyamangalam Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Palakkarai, Trichy – 8.

¶14

5.Arockiadas ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to stop the illegal construction made by the fifth respondent in T.S.No.20, G.D.Naidu Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Ariyamangalam, Trichy District and remove the construction already made in the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P for R1 Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, for R2 & R3 No appearance for R4 & R5

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) This writ petition is for directing the third respondent to take action in respect of the construction said to be illegally put up by the fifth respondent. The writ petitioner has already given a representation in this regard.

¶21

2.This Court directs the third respondent to take action in the matter in accordance with law after issuing notice to the fifth respondent. If the construction is put up in public road, the same cannot be allowed and shall be removed. However, statutory procedure has to be followed before causing its removal. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

3.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Trichy District,Trichy.

¶28

2.The Commissioner,

¶29

Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Trichy.

¶30

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶31

Ariyamangalam Zone,

¶32

Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Palakkarai, Trichy-8.

¶33

4.The Junior Engineer, Ariyamangalam Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Palakkarai, Trichy – 8.

¶34

+1CC to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.No.76220

¶35

+1CC to Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.No.75969

¶36

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 76242

¶37

W.P(MD)No.10348 of 2015 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2015 01.09.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Arul/skm AM/MR KKR/SAR 1/26.09.2017/2P/8C

R. Easter Raj, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Easter Raj, 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

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Haja Mohideen

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Muthulakshmi

Baby Saroja, Vs the Commissioner

Soundararaja Mills Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

M. Dharamalingam Vs the Commissioner

Meenal Vs the District Revenue Officer