Disposed

Pachaiappan v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Aug 2018WP/1062/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction for the second respondent to consider a representation and refrain from constructing a Veterinary Hospital near the petitioner's land. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation within six weeks after affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks.

Pachaiappan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.1062 of 2014

¶6

Pachaiappan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Villupuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.09.2013 within the stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶7

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 30.09.2013, to restrain the respondents from constructing a Veterinary Hospital in the Gramanatham Land, nearer to the Patta land belonging to the petitioner.

¶8

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted a representation claiming the same relief as prayed in this writ petition, but, the said representation is yet to be disposed of by the second respondent. However, the learned counsel submitted that it would suffice, if the representation dated 30.09.2013 made by the petitioner is directed to be considered by the second respondent, on merits.

¶9

Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submitted that the second

¶10

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

¶11

respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, if not considered earlier, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as any of the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶14

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gsk
To
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kallakurichi,
Villupuram District.
+1cc to Mr.N.Umapathi, Advocate, S.R.No.56621

¶15

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.57674

¶16

W.P.No.1062 of 2014

¶17

CA(CO) GSP(05/10/2018)

¶18

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

Pachaiappan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pachaiappan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Kamakshi Vs the Tahsildar

T.Anitha, Vs the Secretary

M.Muhtu Vs the Commissioner

R.Sravanakumar, Vs the Registrar

M.Saraswathi Vs the Secretary to the

I.Arockyaraj Vs the District Manager (Tasmac)