Disposed

R.Balakumar v. District Collector

Madras HC2 Jan 2020WP/35397/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging encroachment of a public road by the fourth respondent, this Court directed the Executive Officer and Tahsildar to inspect the premises of both parties. The Court ordered an inquiry into compliance with sanctioned plans and communication of findings to the report within ten weeks, subsequently disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed Executive Officer and Tahsildar to inspect petitioner's and fourth respondent's premises within ten weeks to verify sanctioned plan compliance and encroachments.

R.Balakumar Vs District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 02.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶7

WP.No.35397/2019

¶8

R.Balakumar .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector
Office of the District Collector,
Coimbatore.
2.The Director of Town Planning
O/o.The Director of Town Planning
807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Zonal Deputy Director,
O/o.The Director of Town Planning
Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore.
4.M.Marimuthu .. Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments
made in the public road at Bharathiar Street, Singarampalayam,
Kinathukkadavu, Coimbatore District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balakrishnan
For Respondents: M.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.GP
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,]

¶10

(1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

(2)The petitioner is a resident of Door No.20, Bharathiyar Street, Singarampalayam, Kinathukkadavu, Coimbatore District and styling this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation, came forward with the allegation that the 4^th respondent herein had encroached upon a public road, viz., Bharathiyar Street, Singarampalayam, Kinathukkadavu, Coimbatore District and caused encroachment. The petitioner, in this regard, had submitted representations dated 10.07.2017, 31.07.2017, 06.08.2018, 25.02.2019 to the official respondents and despite receipt and acknowledgment, no action whatsoever has been taken on those representations and left with no other option, came forward to file this writ petition.

¶14

(3)Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner who has invited the attention of this Court to the acknowledgment given by the office of the 1^st respondent as well as the photographs and would submit that in utter violation of the relevant laws, Rules and Regulations, the 4^th respondent had encroached upon the public road and put up an additional construction and hence, prays for appropriate orders for removal of the same.

¶15

(4)During the course of arguments, this Court has put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is not an encroacher and that the superstructure put up by him, is strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and it was answered by him by stating that everything has been done strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

(5)The Court heard the submissions of Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶17

(6)Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his representations or in this writ petition, directs the Executive Officer, Kinathukkadavu Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District, along with the Tahsildar, Kinathukkadavu, Coimbatore District, to cause inspection of the premises of the 4^th respondent as well as the petitioner, after putting them on notice, in the light of the communication of the 1^st respondent dated 28.08.2018 in Na.Ka.No.06-2/2018, to find out whether the superstructures put up by the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent, are strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and any encroachments have been caused and it is so, shall take appropriate action in accordance with law

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

as to the alleged deviated / unauthorised superstructure as well as the encroachment by following due process of law and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the 4^th respondent. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

(7)The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(JJ Act)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1.The District Collector
Office of the District Collector,
Coimbatore.
2.The Director of Town Planning
O/o.The Director of Town Planning
807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Zonal Deputy Director,
O/o.The Director of Town Planning
Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore.
COPY TO:-
1.The Tahsildar
Kinathukkadavu Taluk
Coimbatore District.
2.The Executive Officer
Kinathukkadavu Town Panchayat
Coimbatore District.
+1cc to Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Advocate SR.3/2020
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.446
WP.No.35397/2019
VG-II(CO)
CB(13/02/2020)

¶23

¶24

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

R.Balakumar v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Balakumar v. 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

K.Muthulakshmi Vs The Presideing Officer

M/S.Vijayalakshmi Ginning Factory Vs M/s. Syndicate Bank

M/S.D.M.Silks Vs The Authorised Officer

Mrs. Jayabarathi Kannan Vs Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.

C.Kumaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Rekha Vs Union of India Rep by its General