Allowed

Balagurusamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4025/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against executive authorities seeking injunction against demolition of petitioner's house doorstep without opportunity. Court allowed petition and directed respondent to consider petitioner's representation within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; second respondent directed to consider representation dated 06.03.2017 and dispose of it within fifteen days.

Balagurusamy Vs the District Collector — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4025 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.3201 of 2017

¶7

Balagurusamy .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk Office, Madurai District.

¶11

3.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Sedapatty, Madurai District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forbear the second respondent to demolish door steps of the petitioner's house situated in Survey No.286-32 at Athikaripatty Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2017.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru, Additional Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.]

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent to forbear the second respondent from demolishing the door steps of the house of the petitioner situates in Survey No.286-32, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Athikaripatty Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶17

¶18

2.Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that in respect of Survey No.286-32, a patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner wherein he put up a dwelling house and now the second respondent without giving opportunity to the petitioner has made attempts to demolish the door steps of the same and under the said circumstances a representation has also been given on 06.03.2017, but the same has not been considered.

¶20

4.It is seen from the records that with regard to Survey No.286-32, a patta has been granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

5.The main contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that even without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent has attempted to demolish the door steps of the house of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶22

6.In fine, this writ petition is allowed without costs and the second respondent is strictly directed to look into the representation dated 06.03.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of fifteen days. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶27

¶28

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶29

2.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk Office, Madurai District.

¶30

3.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Sedapatty, Madurai District.

¶31

+1CC to M/S.S.Muniyandi, Advocate, SR.No. 13226

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.4025 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.3201 of 2017 08.03.2017

¶34

smn

¶35

AM/CM MSA/SAR-3/08.03.2017/2P/5C

Balagurusamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balagurusamy 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

Dr. T. Sam Elango Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

K.Princy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muthiah, Vs Tahsildar

Star Model Matriculation Vs the Commissioner of Town and

Susila, Vs the District Collector

Subramanian Vs the District Collector