Disposed

V.Kannaki v. The District Collector

Madras HC26 Nov 2019WP(MD)/16594/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a request to regularize construction on land alleged to be illegally granted as Patta because it lies in a riverbed. The court directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry and issue notices, stayed demolition pending the outcome, and required the petitioner to maintain the building's physical features.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry into Patta grant conducted; notices issued; demolition stayed pending outcome; petitioner to maintain building features.

V.Kannaki Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.16594 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.16594 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) No.13231 of 2019

V.Kannaki

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector

¶11

O/o.the District Collector Office Sivagangai District

¶12

2.The Executive Officer Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat Thiruppuvanam Sivagangai District ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in e.f.vz; .550/2019 dated 27.06.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the second respondent to regularize the petitioner construction in Plot No.340 situated in S.No.1/6 in T.Nelmudikarai Thiruppuvanam, Thiruppuvanam Post, Sivagangai District, by considering the petitioner's application dated 20.06.2019 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.M.Pandiyarajan Government Advocate for R2

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent, dated 27.06.2019, by which her request for approval of the building constructed by her and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.16594 of 2019

¶21

regularization has been rejected on the ground that Patta has been granted illegally, because the subject land is in the riverbed.

¶22

2. The petitioner if had proposed to put up construction, then ought to have obtained building plan and then, put up construction. In the instant case, it is an admitted case that no such planning permission was obtained prior to commencement of the construction. Precisely, for this reason, now, the petitioner wants regularization.

¶23

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the District Collector has issued an embargo and communicated to all the Sub-Registrars not to entertain any documents for registration, because the subject land is in the riverbed. If the land in question is actually in the riverbed, then the question of granting Patta would not arise. Then, the issue would be how Patta was granted. Obviously, without the collusion of the revenue officials, Patta could not have been issued.

¶24

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land in question is not in the riverbed and in support of the same, there are several revenue records.

¶25

5. We direct the District Collector, Sivagangai District, to conduct an enquiry into this and direct the concerned Authority to issue notice to the petitioner and others with regard to the grant of Patta for the subject land and and take action in accordance with law. This direction be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the action is initiated and orders are passed pursuant to the above directions, the respondents are directed not to demolish the petitioner's building and the petitioner shall enjoy the building subject to the outcome of the above directions with a condition that she shall not alter the physical features of the building or create any encumbrance over the subject property.

¶26

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

Krk

¶32

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

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.16594 of 2019

¶35

To:

¶36

1.The District Collector, O/o.the District Collector Office,

¶37

Sivagangai District.

¶38

2.The Executive Officer, Thiruppuvanam Town Panchayat, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-101827[F] dated 27/11/2019 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-102435[F] dated 28/11/2019 )

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.16594 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) No.13231 of 2019

26.11.2019 (2/2)

kmv(CO)

TR(16.12.2019)3P 5C

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

¶46

3/3

V.Kannaki v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kannaki 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Director of School Education Vs Revathy

Abraham Memorial Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Managing Director, Vs D.Radhakrishnan, (Driver) Retired

S.Vigneshwaran Vs The Chairman

S.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

Govindaraj, S/O.Sampandam, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu