Disposed

K.G.Mannar Naidu v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC12 Oct 2020WP/12491/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge habeas corpus warrant case dismissing bail application. The third respondent had purchased 1/4th share in a Well but was deprived of service connection after orders were passed in the main writ petition regarding service connection of the petitioner in another Well, leading to a liberty granted for individual application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the impleaded third respondent to file an individual application before respondents 1 and 2 for service connection in the Well at Survey No. 532/3A in proportion to his rights.

K.G.Mannar Naidu Vs The Superintending… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.No.12491 of 2020

¶2

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶3

Today the matter has been posted under the caption 'for being mentioned'.

¶4

2.It is brought to the notice of this Court that an impleading petition was filed in WMP No. 17856 of 2020 and it was also ordered by this Court on 12.10.2020 and the impleading petitioner was added as the 3^rd respondent in this writ petition.

¶5

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded 3^rd respondent submitted that she had purchased 1/4^th share in the Well situated at Survey No.532/3A from the wife of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the orders passed in this writ petition, the writ petitioner has virtually transferred the service connection from the Well situated in Survey No.532/3A to the Well situated in Survey No.508/2 and thereby there is no service connection for the Well situated at Survey No. 532/3A. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the impleaded 3^rd respondent inspite of having 1/4^th share has now been deprived of a service connection in the Well.

¶6

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the official respondents have transferred the service connection in the name of the petitioner with respect to the Well situated at Survey No.508/2. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner never objected to the 3^rd respondent drawing water from the Well situated at Survey No.532/3A. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

1/2

¶9

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶10

lpp

¶11

the 3^rd respondent cannot have any grievance in the service connection granted to the petitioner for the Well in Survey No.508/2 and admittedly the 3^rd respondent does not have any right over this Well.

¶12

5.In view of the specific stand taken by either side, liberty is granted to the impleaded 3^rd respondent to make an individual application before respondents 1 and 2 seeking for service connection for the Well in Survey No.532/3A based on the title documents. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents shall consider the same and grant service connection in the name of the impleaded 3^rd respondent in proportion to the right of the 3^rd respondent in the Well situated at Survey No.532/3A. On such service connection being given, the impleaded 3^rd respondent can continue to draw the water from the Well.

¶13

6.This clarity will sufficiently safeguard the rights of the petitioner as well as the impleaded 3^rd respondent. This order shall be incorporated in the earlier order passed on 12.10.2020 and a fresh copy shall be issued to the respective counsel.

¶14

lpp

¶15

W.P.No.12491 of 2020

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

2/2

K.G.Mannar Naidu v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Mannar Naidu v. The Superintending Engineer

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

K.Lalitha Vs The Superintending Engineer

V.Vidhya Vs The District Registrar

R.Selvi Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

G.Srinivasan Vs The Inspector General

B.R.Janusha Sri, Vs Central Board of Secondary Education(Cbse)

Dr.P.Tamilarasi Vs The Secretary to Government