Disposed

H.Baskar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Aug 2021WP/15952/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges interference with construction activities on petitioner's land. The court directed the respondents to decide on the petitioner's representation after hearing the third respondent within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding construction interference, issue notice to the third respondent, and pass an order on merits within twelve weeks.

H.Baskar Vs The Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 02.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

WP.No.15952/2021

[Video Conferencing]

H.Baskar

..Petitioner

Versus

The Commissioner

¶11

Office of the Directorate of Survey

¶12

and Settlement, Chepauk

¶13

Chennai 600 005.

¶14

The Special Tahsildar Madhavaram Taluk

¶15

Chennai

¶16

S.Gunasekaran

¶17

..Respondents

¶18

Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus forbearing the first and second respondents from interfering into petitioner construction activities to be carried out in petitioner patta land measuring 395 sq.ft., covered under Manaivari Thoraya Patta SR.No.3654/2016.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreedhar

¶20

For R1 & R2 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(1) Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

¶23

(2) The petitioner herein has a grievance, viz., that though he has purchased the property, he is not able to put any up construction and there appears to be further complaints

¶24

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

¶25

(3)

¶26

against the petitioner herein by the 3^rd respondent/S.Gunasekaran. In this connection, the petitioner had given a representation on 01.07.2021 to respondents 1 and 2.

¶27

(3) It would only be appropriate that respondents 1 and 2 take a decision on the said representation. While taking such a decision, it would also be appropriate that they issue notice to the 3^rd respondent/S.Gunasekaran, hear both the writ petitioner and also the 3^rd respondent and pass an order on merits.

¶28

(4) In view of the limited scope of the writ petition, without going further into the facts, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.07.2021 and pass an order, after hearing the 3^rd respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶31

// True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

¶35

The Commissioner Office of the Directorate of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk Chennai 600 005.

¶36

The Special Tahsildar Madhavaram Taluk Chennai.

¶37

+1cc to M/s.R.Sreedhar, Advocate, S.R.No.37275

¶38

+1cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, S.R.No.37699

¶39

WP.No.15952/2021

¶40

VG-II(CO) SU(24/08/2021)

¶41

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

H.Baskar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Baskar v. The Commissioner

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

Kandayammal Vs v.P.Sekar

V.Vanitha Vs Rajamani Ammal

Manicka Selvi Vs E.M.Pr.Muthappan

A.Xavier, Vs The District Collector

K.R.Balasubramanian Vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.1

K.Narasimha Naidu, Vs The Collector