Disposed

Mathiyalagan, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC12 Mar 2018WP(MD)/5197/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court entertained a writ petition filed by a resident alleging encroachment of a public street by a respondent's staircase. The Court directed the Commissioner to inspect the premises within three weeks to verify the encroachment and take appropriate action within eight weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Commissioner to inspect premises within three weeks and take appropriate action within eight weeks based on findings.

Mathiyalagan, Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :12.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

W.P(MD)No.5197 of 2018

¶7

Mathiyalagan

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.Ponnusamy ... Respondents

¶11

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 take action for removing the encroachment made in Pillaiyar Kovil North Street, Mavadical, within Kadayanallur Municipality, by the 2^nd respondent within a time frame by considering the representation received by the first respondent on 07.11.2017.

¶12

For R-1 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

This Writ Petition is styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. The petitioner, who is a resident of Pillaiyarkovil North Street, Mavadical, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District, came forward to file this Writ Petition stating among other things that he is an agriculturist and the second respondent has put up a new superstructure consisting of ground + two floors and in order to have access, he has put up a staircase on the public street, namely, Pillaiyarkovil North Street and in this regard, he has submitted a representation dated 07.11.2017 to the first respondent and in spite https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of receipt and acknowledgment, no response is forthcoming and hence, he came forward to file this Writ Petition.

¶17

¶18

Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and would submit that though this Writ Petition is styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation', it is not so, for the reason that the petitioner is also a resident of the very same street and seeks time to get instructions.

¶19

This Court has heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed before it.

¶20

This Court, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case projected by the petitioner either in his representation dated 07.11.2017 or in this Writ Petition, directs the first respondent to put the petitioner as well as the second respondent on notice and cause inspection of the premises bearing Door No.29/1, Pillaiyarkovil North Street, Mavadical, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District, to find out as to whether the staircase put up by the second respondent to approach the superstructure, encroaches upon the public road and the said exercise is to be carried out, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and depending upon the result of the same, the first respondent shall take appropriate action, on merits and in accordance with law, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the second respondent.

¶21

This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No

¶22

costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Commissioner, Kadayanallur Municipality, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

+1CC to Mr.D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No. 54672

¶29

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.5197 of 2018 12.03.2018

¶30

¶31

AM/KKR/SAR 1/26.03.2018/2P/3C

¶32

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

Mathiyalagan, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathiyalagan, 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

G. Mookkammal Vs S.Devadass

Mrs. K.Prema Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Poomayil Vs the Secretary to the

V.Jeyaraman Chettiyar, Vs the District Collector

G.Chandra, W/O.Gopal, Vs the District Collector

K.Thomas Samuel, Vs the District Collector