Partly allowed

R.Muthusamy v. The Managing Director

Madras HC16 Apr 2018WP/9201/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 226, this Court, at the instance of landowners concerned with unauthorized encroachments on a reserved road, directed the second respondent to inspect the site and take appropriate action after issuing notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to inspect the alleged encroached land within four weeks and take appropriate action within ten weeks thereafter after giving notice.

R.Muthusamy Vs The Managing Director — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 16.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶7

WP.No.9201/2018 & WMP.No.11023/2018
1.R.Muthusamy
2.Mrs.Lalitha Kumar .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
2.The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
K.K.Nagar [Division],
Near Ashok Pillar, Chennai 600 083.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
K.K.Nagar [Division],
Near Ashok Pillar, Chennai 600 083. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to dispose the petitioners representation dated
24.01.2018 to remove the unauthorised huts, pucca construction,
tea stall etc., over the 10 feet road in between Bhrathi Salai
and out plots No.B-54 and B-55, 10 th Cross street, Kurinji Nagar,
Ramapuram, Chennai-89.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Dhananjayan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anandamurthy

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.V.Anandamurthy, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

2 The 1^st petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the land admeasuring to an extent of 199 sq.ft., together with building, electricity connection and a well thereon, bearing MIG Plot No.B-55, and the 2^nd petitioner claims to be the lawful owner of the MIG Plot No.B-54 and both the flats are situate at Kurinji Nagar, Ramapuram, Chennai-89, comprised in S.No177 [Part], Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. It is the claim of the petitioners that there is a 10 feet road between MIG Plot No.B-54 and B-55, Bharathi Salai and it is under the control of the respondents and however, few persons started encroaching upon the said road and reduced its width by putting up huts, pucca construction and a tea stall and exploiting the said road for commercial purposes. The petitioners, in this regard, also sought for information in that regard from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who vide communication dated 30.12.2014 in Letter No.nf/nf/e/nfh./ep/m/gp/3445/14, has informed that the said land has been allocated for road and it is under the control of the Local Administration Department for future expansion.

¶13

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit a detailed representation dated 24.01.2018 was also submitted to the respondents 1 and 3 and in spite of receipt and acknowledgment, no response is forthcoming and hence, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶14

4 The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that Kurinji Nagar Scheme was already implemented in Ramapuram Village in S.No.175, 176, 177 and the roads as well as parks have been handed over to the Local Administration and insofar as the road in question is concerned, the said land itself is reserved for future expansion and it will be handed over to the Highways Department.

¶15

5 The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶16

6 This Court, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the 2^nd respondent, to cause inspection of the Plot Nos.B51, B-54 and B-55 as well as the

¶17

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

¶18

road said to have been reserved for formation of the road, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and depending upon the result of the inspection, after putting the petitioners as well as the alleged encroachers on notice, take appropriate action in accordance with law within a further period of ten weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the alleged encroachers.

¶19

7 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-viii) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board 493, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai 600 035. 2.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Housing Board K.K.Nagar [Division], Near Ashok Pillar, Chennai 600 083. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Housing Board K.K.Nagar [Division], Near Ashok Pillar, Chennai 600 083. Copy to:The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St George Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.V.ANANDHAMURTHY, Advocate, S.R.No.28322 +1cc to Mr.P.DHANANJAYAM, Advocate, S.R.No. 27918

¶22

WP.No.9201/2018

¶23

SSD(CO) TR(10/05/2018)

¶24

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

R.Muthusamy v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthusamy v. The Managing Director

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

E.Jai Ganesh, Vs The Commissioner

Mathiyalagan Vs The Secretary to Government

M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd., Vs The Executive Engineer-Zone 10

V.Rajasekar, Vs The District Collector

C.Thavamani Vs The District Collector

Church of Lamb Vs The District Collector