Dismissed

P.Pagan, S/O.Pambiyan, v. the Project Direct Cum

Madras HC12 Feb 2019WP(MD)/2513/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari directing government authorities to clear waste from land he claimed to own, alleged to be leased to the third respondent. The court held the petitioner must resolve the contractual dispute directly with the third respondent, rendering the petition non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable with no costs.

P.Pagan, S/O.Pambiyan, Vs the Project Direct Cum — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.02.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

WP(MD)No.2513 of 2019

P.Pagan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Project Director cum Authority Engineer,

¶11

National Highways Authority of India, No.1 & 2 Floor, Subramaniyapuram 3^rd Street, Karaikudi – 630 002.

¶12

2.Special Tahsildar, National Highways Land Acquisition, Sivagangai – 630 561

¶13

3.The Project Engineer, Dilip Buildcon HD, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, Prakash Printer Building, Pillaivayal Kaliyamman Street,

¶14

Thondi Road, Sivagangai – 630 561. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to instruct the third respondent to remove the wastes, machineries etc., in the land situated at land in Survey No.152/4 at the extent of 4.69 acres situated at Madagupatti Village, Sivagangai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2018 within stipulated time.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.C.Arulavadivel @ Sekar for R1 & R3

¶18

: Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate for R2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶21

2.The prayer in the writ petition is that the respondents 1 and 2 should instruct the third respondent to remove the waste and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other items kept in the petition mentioned lands that belong to the writ petitioner.

¶22

¶23

3.As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NHAI, there is no contractual arrangement between the writ petitioner and the first respondent. It appears that the writ petitioner had a contractual arrangement with the third respondent. If the third respondent had committed breach of the lease conditions, the petitioner must workout his rights independently against the third respondent. The petitioner cannot involve the governmental authorities in order to resolve the dispute which he has with the third respondent.

¶24

4.This writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

The Special Tahsildar, National Highways Land Acquisition, Sivagangai – 630 561.

¶31

+1CC TO Mr.M.Ramu, Advocate, SR No.46857

¶32

+1CC TO Mr.C.Arulavadivel @ Sekar, Advocate, Sr No.46560 +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO.46711

¶33

WP(MD)No.2513 of 2019 12.02.2019

¶34

skm

¶35

KK/04.04.2019/2P.5C

¶36

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

P.Pagan, S/O.Pambiyan, v. the Project Direct Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pagan, S/O.Pambiyan, v. the Project Direct Cum

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

Ravichandran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Ayyadurai, S/O.Rasu, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Santhi Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhanalakshmi, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumarvel, Vs Hindustan Petroleum

Epanechar Immanuvel @ Vs the State