Disposed

N.Chellappan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Sept 2021WP/12054/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner complained that the fifth respondent damaged a public cement road and failed to comply with earlier orders. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the pending representation, afford due hearing to all interested parties, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The petition was disposed of with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation, afford due hearing, and pass orders within six weeks; petition disposed of.

N.Chellappan, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.09.2021 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶3

W.P. No. 12054 of 2016

¶4

N. Chellappan .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶7

The Tahsildar Maduranthagam Taluk Madhuranthagam Kancheepuram District

¶8

The Block Development Officer Madiurathagam Taluk Kancheepuram District

¶9

The Sub Inspector of Police G-10 Anaikattu Police Station Pavunjur, Kancheepuram District

¶10

A. Arjunapillai .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to stop the fifth respondent from damaging the Road in S.No.192/12 Murukkambakkam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District and restore the damaged cement road to its original state, based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2016 made to the 1 to 3 respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Devnarendran For Respondents: Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu Government Counsel (for R1, R2, R4) Mr. M. Dig Vijaya Pandian (for R3) Mr. M. Arumugam (for R5)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to stop the fifth respondent from damaging the Road in S.No.192/12 Murukkambakkam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram District and restore the damaged cement road to its original state based on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2016 made to the respondents 1 to 3.

¶15

According to the Petitioner, he is the Ward Councillor of Murukkampakkam Vinayagar Koil Street. It is stated that the fifth respondent encroached upon the land comprised in S. No.192/12 which is a Government Poramboke. The petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing WP No.21580 of 2009, which was disposed of, by order dated 07.09.2010. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent removed the encroachments made by the fifth respondent. Subsequently, when cement road was sought to be laid, the fifth respondent filed WP No. 23584 of 2013 and attempted to stop the laying of the road. This Court dismissed the said writ petition with an observation that the petitioner has no right to stop the work meant for public convenience. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, having failed in all his attempt, destroyed and removed a portion of the cement road measuring about 10 meters in length and 1 meter width on 31.01.2016 with the help of a JCB. In this context, the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.02.2016 to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against the fourth respondent. However, the said representation has not been acted upon, hence, this Writ Petition.

¶16

Heard both parties. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2016 and thereafter pass order on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, fifth respondent as well as any other interested parties, within a period of six weeks on receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶18

costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

dhk

¶24

¶25

The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

¶26

The Tahsildar Maduranthagam Taluk Madhuranthagam Kancheepuram District

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Block Development Officer Madiurathagam Taluk Kancheepuram District

¶28

The Sub Inspector of Police G-10 Anaikattu Police Station

¶29

Pavunjur, Kancheepuram District

¶30

+1 cc to Mr.A. Devnarendran, Advocate Sr.NO. 44808 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 45195

WP No. 12054 of 2016

PCH (CO)

A.SK(13.10.2021)

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

N.Chellappan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Chellappan, 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

M/s. Orion Ventures Vs Southern Railway

Tamilnadu Paralympic Sports Association Vs The Principal Secretary / Member Secretary to sports

A.Anandan Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Mumtaj Vs The Tahsildar

M.Thangarasu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M/s.Best Timbers, Vs The Union of India