Disposed

D.Seetha v. The District collector

Madras HC29 Sept 2021WP/20702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 regarding relocation of weavers from an encroached waterbody, the Court held there was no public interest. It directed the District Collector to address the petitioners' plea for extra space needed for weaving activities if the general allotment was insufficient, while ordering immediate occupation of allocated alternative accommodation.

What did the court decide?

Order directed District Collector to consider granting additional space to weavers for convenient activities; petitioners to immediately occupy alternative accommodation.

D.Seetha Vs The District collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

WP No.20702 of 2021

¶8

1.D.Seetha
2.L.Dhandabani
3.K.Sivaraja
4.M.Krishnamoorthy

¶9

5.E.Mohanavel
6.P.Amsa
7.M.Santhi ...Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The District Collector
Kanchipuram
Kanchipuram District. ...Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to consider the petitioner's representation letter to
the respondent dated 11.01.2021.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶15

There is no element of public interest in this petition
as it is the personal cause which is espoused by the petitioners
on their behalf and on behalf of other weavers.

¶16

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

¶17

2. It is submitted by Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State
Government Pleader and is virtually admitted on behalf of the
petitioners, that the petitioners were some of several
encroachers in a waterbody and steps have been taken for removal
of all the encroachers by allotting appropriate accommodation to
them. The grievance of the petitioners is that since weaving
may require greater space, such aspect of the matter ought to be
taken into consideration.

¶18

3. Since the official respondents, represented by
Mr.P.Muthukumar, submit that alternative accommodation has
already been provided for all the encroachers who have been
removed from the relevant area, the petitioners should accept
such accommodation as provided to everybody else. However, the
official respondents are also requested to ascertain whether
additional space may be allotted to weavers in general so that
they can conduct their activities conveniently.

¶19

4. This order will, however, not be an excuse for the
petitioners or any other person to continue to be in occupation
of the waterbody or any part thereof. The petitioners and
others of the petitioners' ilk should immediately occupy the
alternative accommodation allotted to them. Once they are in
occupation of such alternative accommodation, the general
request for additional space may be taken up by the respondent
District Collector, Kanchipuram and every effort should be made
to consider such request sympathetically to allow the regular
activities of the petitioners and other weavers to be conducted
conveniently.

¶20

W.P.No.20702 of 2021 is disposed of. There will be no
order as to costs.

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

sra

¶24

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

¶25

To:

¶26

The District Collector
Kanchipuram
Kanchipuram District.

¶27

+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.50826

¶28

W.P.No.20702 of 2021

¶29

PVS(CO)
RVM(05/10/2021)

¶30

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

D.Seetha v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Seetha 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

Workmen of Tamil Nadu State Vs Cheran Transport Corporation

The Chairman-Cum-M.D., Vs the Controlling Authority

The Chairman-Cum-M.D., Vs the Controlling Authority

V.Rajasekaran Vs The Principal District Judge

R.Balamuralidharan Vs Union of India

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Vs M/S.A1 Champandy Industries Ltd.