Disposed

G.Shanmugam v. The Commissioner

Madras HC25 Apr 2018WP/10514/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking removal of an alleged encroachment on a public road, the High Court directed the respondent to inspect the site to verify encroachments by both parties and consequently direct removal of unauthorized structures within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Assistant Engineer to inspect the road and constructions to verify encroachments by both parties and order removal of unauthorized structures based on inspection results within ten weeks.

G.Shanmugam Vs The Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 25.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶7

W.P.No.10514 of 2018

¶8

Mr.G.Shanmugam .. Petitioner Versus

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai Rippon Buildings Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶10

2.The Assistant Engineer, Division No.64, Corporation of Greater Chennai Shanthi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099.

¶11

3.Mr.Sekar .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action and remove the encroachment of public road at Krishna Street, Thirupathy Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai 99 made by the 3^rd respondent through representation dated 09.04.2018.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi

¶14

For Respondents :Mr.K.Soundararajan for R1 and R2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,]

¶17

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

¶18

The petitioner claims to have purchased a vacant land admeasuring to an extent of 7500 sq.ft comprised in Old S.No.130/3, New T.S.No.5, Block No.37, bearing Plot Nos.10,11 and 12 situated at Venkateswara Nagar, Kolathur Village, under the Sale Deed dated 27.12.2004 vide Doc.No.12085/2004 and claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. The grievance

¶19

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

¶20

expressed by the petitioner is that even in the year 1980, the Corporation of Chennai has formulated a pucca road for public use and one such road begins from Thirupathy Nagar, 4^th Main Road and it is the only access to his place. The further grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent who is said to have purchased the plot in S.No.127/1, Plot No.7, situated at Krishna Street, Thirupathi Nagar Extn. Kolathur Village, had encroached upon the southern side of the 20 feet road of the Venkateswara Nagar layout and put up a pucca construction having plinth area of 2000 Sq.ft. The petitioner, in this regard, has submitted a representation dated 09.04.2018 to the respondents and inspite of receipt and acknolwedgement, no action has been taken sofar and hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶21

Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

4 Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his representation or in this writ petition, directs the 2^nd respondent to put the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent on notice and cause inspection of Thirupathy Nagar, 4^th Main Road to find out as to the encroachment in the form of obstruction on the said road and that apart shall also cause inspection of the superstructure put up by the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and the said excercise has to be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 2^nd respondent subject to the result of the inspection shall take appropriate action in accordance with law for removal of the alleged encroachments and unauthorized construction, if any, on the part of the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent which is to be carried out within a further period of ten weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, in this regard to the petitioner as well as to the 3^rd respondent.

¶23

5 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶24

s/dAssistant Registrar(CO)

¶25

True Copy

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

rka/sk

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai Rippon Buildings Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶31

2.The Assistant Engineer, Division No.64, Corporation of Greater Chennai Shanthi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai 600 099.

¶32

+1 CC to Mr.S.P.Sudalaiyandi, Advocate sr 30987.
W.P.No.10514 of 2018
MG(CO)
SP(24/05/2018)

¶33

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

G.Shanmugam v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Shanmugam 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

Moses, S/o.Chinnappan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Vs M/S.Saravana Transport

P.Radhakrishnan, Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Ganesan, Vs Chennai Metropolitan

The MylaporeJuma Mosque Vs The Commissioner

K.Pious Mathews, Vs The District Collector