Disposed

V. Maharajan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Nov 2018WP(MD)/5470/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 was filed to direct administrative authorities to remove an encroachment by a petitioner on a public path. The court found partial removal by authorities before disposal and directed the officials to finish the work.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 to remove remaining encroachment by issuing notice to 6th respondent within three months.

V. Maharajan, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.5470 of 2013

V.Maharajan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Madurai District – 625 020. 2.The Block Development Officer, Madurai East, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The Planning Officer, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District – 625 020. 5.The President, Ilangiyenthal Village Panchayat, Madurai East Panchayat Union, Puthu Thamaraipatti (Post), Madurai – 625 107. 6.S.Rajendran ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1 to 5 respondents to remove encroachment made by the 6^th respondent in the pathway (Cement Road) in Athidravidar Colony Road at Ilangiyenthal Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran For Respondents 1, 3 : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam & 4 Additional Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondents 2 & 5 : No appearance For 6^th Respondent : Mr.R.Anand

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take enforcement action to remove the encroachment said to have been made by the 6^th respondent by laying a pathway (Cement Road) at Athidravidar Colony Road, Ilangiyenthal Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction submitted that during the currency of the writ petition part of the encroachment has already been removed by the Block Development Officer, the second respondent herein. According to the counsel, the authorities assured that the remaining encroachment will also be removed.

¶18

3.Even according to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 themselves have removed a portion of the encroachment. It is for the respondents 2 and 3 to take follow up action for removal of the remaining encroachment after issuing notice to the sixth respondent. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

4.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶24

¶25

1.The District Collector,

¶26

Collectorate Buildings,

¶27

Madurai District – 625 020.

¶28

2.The Block Development Officer,

¶29

Madurai East, Madurai District.

3.The Tahsildar,

Madurai North Taluk,

Madurai District.

4.The Planning Officer,

¶34

District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Madurai North Taluk,

¶35

Madurai District – 625 020.

¶36

- 1 CC TO Mr.R.JEGADEESWARAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 95471

¶37

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 95182 SJ

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TE/SV/SAR-1 : 11/12/2018 : 2P/7C W.P.(MD) No.5470 of 2013

¶39

13.11.2018

V. Maharajan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Maharajan, 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

S.Kalavathi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Muthulakshmi

The Combined Court Advocate Vs the Bar Council of Tamilnadu

Mr. Muthu Vs Mr. a. Karthik

The Commissioner, Vs K.Kannaki, D/O. Krishna Pillai

P. Mariyappan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.