Dismissed

Kalidas v. the District Collector

Madras HC24 Jul 2017WP(MD)/14495/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to demolish illegal construction by a Panchayat violating a highway plan. The Court noted a pending civil suit for injunction filed by petitioners. Dismissing the petition as there was no reason to intervene due to civil suit pendency.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Kalidas Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.14495 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015

¶3

1.Kalidas

¶4

2.Senthamizh Selvan .. Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶7

2.The Divisional Engineer (H), Construction & Maintenance, Highway Department, Virudhunagar.

¶8

3.The Executive Officer, Kariyapatti Town Panchayat, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to take immediate action in furtherance of the communication by the second respondent dated 15.06.2015 in Ka.No.1486/2015/A3 and to demolish the illegal construction put up by the third respondent in violation of the plan dated 12.12.2014 on the Highway margin on Tuticorin – Madurai Highway.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mrs.Mareeshwari

¶12

for Mr.S.Natarajan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader.

¶13

For R - 3 : Mr.PrithviRaj for Mr.C.Selvaraj

¶14

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. ]

¶15

The petitioners filed this writ petition directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent on account of illegal construction stated to have been made by the local body in violation of the sanctioned plan.

¶16

¶17

2.The Advocate Commissioner, appointed by this Court, in his report stated that there was a small extension of the waiting shelter in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The shops belonging to the petitioners are situated just behind the bus shelter in question.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the petitioners have already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.69 of 2015, before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, for injunction and the same is still pending.

¶19

4.In view of the pendency of the civil suit, we do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶20

5.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶27

2.The Divisional Engineer (H), Construction & Maintenance, Highway Department, Virudhunagar.

¶28

3.The Executive Officer, Kariyapatti Town Panchayat, Kariyapatti,

¶29

Virudhunagar District.

¶30

+1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.67929 +1cc to Mr.S.NATARAJAN Advocate in SR. No.67564 PS/SM

¶31

JS/MR.KKR/SAR.1/1.8.2017/2P-6C

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.14495 of 2015 24.07.2017

¶33

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

Kalidas v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalidas 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

N.Chellathurai Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Palanisamy Vs the Chairman

M.Ananthan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

The Chairman, Vs P. Anantha Raja

The Commissioner, Vs K.Kumari Selvan

P.L.Subbaiah Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer