Disposed

V. Subramaniam v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Aug 2019WP/23767/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct public authorities to enforce Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules against a private villager forming a layout named Ayangaran Avenue. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after the fifth respondent was given an opportunity. Petition disposed. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after affording an opportunity to the fifth respondent.

V. Subramaniam Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :27.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No. 23767 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

V.Subramaniam ..Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Deputy Director,
Town and Country Planning Authority,
Dharmapuri Zone,
Dharmapuri 636 701.
3.The Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri.
4.The President,
Peria Kattupalli Village Panchayat,
Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
5.S.Viswanathan,
Proprietor,
Ayngaran Castel,
Survey No.19/1A, Pettarapatti Village,
Krishnagiri Taluk and District. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action as against the fifth respondent based upon the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2011 and enforce the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997 as issued in G.O.Ms.No.255, Rural Development (C2) Department, dated 18.08.1997 and also G.O.Ms.No.71, Rural Development (C2) Department, dated 16.06.2003 and consequentially forbear the fifth respondent from forming layout

¶8

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

¶9

in the name of 'Ayangaran Avenue' in Survey No. 19/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, 2, 20/1, 2, 3, 4A, 20/4B, 5, 6, 22/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Pethanapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District and selling the same as house plots.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh for R1 to R3

¶12

Mr.D.Suriya Narayanan A.G.P.For R4

¶13

M/s.C.D.Johnson for R5.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action as against the fifth respondent based upon the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2011 and enforce the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997 as issued in G.O.Ms.No.255, Rural Development (C2) Department, dated 18.08.1997 and also G.O.Ms.No.71, Rural Development (C2) Department, dated 16.06.2003 and consequentially forbear the fifth respondent from forming layout in the name of 'Ayangaran Avenue' in Survey No. 19/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, 2, 20/1, 2, 3, 4A, 20/4B, 5, 6, 22/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Pethanapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District and selling the same as house plots.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without going into merits of the case, it would suffice if the direction issued to the concerned authority, the fifth respondent herein pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2011 in accordance with law.

¶17

The learned counsel for the private respondent would submit that before considering the petitioner's representation, opportunity may be given to the private respondent, so as to enable him to raise his objection before the Competent Authority.

¶18

Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner after affording opportunity to the fifth respondent, since the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2011. For convenience of the second respondent, the petitioner is directed to send a copy of the representation along with order copy to enable the second respondent to pass an appropriate order.

¶19

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

¶20

With the above direction, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vkr
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Deputy Director,
Town and Country Planning Authority,
Dharmapuri Zone,
Dharmapuri 636 701.
3.The Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri.
4.The President,
Peria Kattupalli Village Panchayat,
Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate SR.73892
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.74667
W.P.No. 23767 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
AD(CO)
CB(24/10/2019)

¶22

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

V. Subramaniam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Subramaniam 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

Chola Spinning Mills Private Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

B. Chandrasekaran (Secretary) Vs the Corporation of Chennai

P.K.P.Processors, HTSCNO.116 Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity

S.Selva Rajendran, Vs the Chennai Metropolitan

S.Mitra Srikanth Vs Union of India

E.Natarajan Vs Tamilnadu Small Industries