Dismissed

D.Rani Desingu v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Dec 2020WP/18076/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, former Panchayat President, filed a writ seeking injunction against construction of a Panchayat Office alleging encroachment on a public road and obstruction of temple car during festivals. Court did not decide on merits but permitted filing of representation with supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; petitioner permitted to submit representation with documents to Tahsildar for disposal within eight weeks.

D.Rani Desingu Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

WP.No.18076/2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 11.12.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
WP.No.18076 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.22457 of 2020
D.Rani Desingu .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
3.The Additional Director/Planning Director,
District Rural Development Camp,
Salem.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
The District Revenue Office,
Salem.
5.The President,
Kothampadi Village Panchayat,
Kalpaganur Post,
Attur Taluk, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶7

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶8

¶9

WP.No.18076/2020

¶10

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from constructing any building in the Raja Veedhi at Kothampadi Village, Kalpaganur Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District, by considering and passing necessary order on the representation of the petitioner dated 12.10.2020.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj
For RR 1 to 5 : Mr.M.Elumalai
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
(through video conferencing)]

¶12

The petitioner claims to be the Ex.President of the 5th respondent local body and she submitted a representation dated 10.10.2020 to all the official respondents, stating among other things that new building for the Panchayat Office under MGNRGES scheme, sought to be constructed by

¶13

way of causing encroachment of Raja Veedhi.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶15

that during festival times, the Temple Car used to be taken and in the event of construction of a building of the local body, it would definitely

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

WP.No.18076/2020

¶19

cause obstruction and other related incidents / accidents and prays for appropriate orders.

¶20

Per contra, Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government

¶21

Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 and on instructions would submit that the petitioner, being the Ex-President, has

¶22

got an axe to grind against the 5^th respondent and the representation

¶23

submitted by the petitioner would be given a disposal by the Tahsildar,

¶24

Athur.

¶25

This Court has considered the rival submissions and also

¶26

perused the materials placed before it.

¶27

Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court in the

¶28

light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his representation or in this Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to submit a representation

¶29

by enclosing authenticated documents, along with photographs within a

¶30

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order /

¶31

uploading of order in the website, to the Tahsildar, Athur, who upon

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

¶34

WP.No.18076/2020

¶35

receipt of the same, shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after putting on notice the 5^th respondent and complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the 5^th respondent.

¶36

The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.N,J] [R.H.J]
11.12.2020
sk
Internet:Yes /No
Index: Yes/No
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
Fort.St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
3.The Additional Director/Planning Director,
District Rural Development Camp,
Salem.
4.The District Revenue Officer,
The District Revenue Office,
Salem.

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

¶39

WP.No.18076/2020

¶40

5.The President, Kothampadi Village Panchayat, Kalpaganur Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District.

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

¶43

WP.No.18076/2020

¶44

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND R.HEMALATHA, J.,

¶45

¶46

WP.No.18076/2020
11.12.2020

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

D.Rani Desingu v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Rani Desingu v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

K.v.Deepthi Vs Union of India

A.R.Iqbal Sait Vs The Government

Jose Kamal Moraes Vs The Collector

P.Pandiyan Vs The Authorized Officer

Jaffer Mohamed Sait Memorial Dispensary Trust Vs The District Collector

K.Sathiyavani Vs Executive Engineer /