Disposed

M.Natarajan v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Mar 2021WP/4025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ seeking mandate to dredge lakes for agricultural use. Court did not examine merits but directed Tahsildar to consider representation, provide hearing to affected parties, and issue speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation, provide hearing to affected parties, and issue a speaking order within six weeks.

M.Natarajan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.4025 of 2021
M.Natarajan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Tahsildar,
Kundrathur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Principal Commissioner,
Area Development Scheme,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Commissioner,
Kundrathur Panchayat,
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents and restore and remove the muds and saudu in the boken lakes wall which are situated in S.Nos.422, 425 and 431 which passes through the S.Nos.1 to 423 (Dredging and De-silting of Lake Bond) Kancheepuram District, Kundrathur Taluk, Poonthandalam Village Survey No.97 and hence which enables to carry out the agricultural works.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Natarajan Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Suresh Government Advocate

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Made by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

¶13

The writ petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the muds and saudu in the lake walls situated at Kancheepuram District, Kundrathur Taluk, Poonthandalam Village.

¶14

The writ petitioner asserts that the villagers in Kundrathur circle, Poonthandalam village, are unable to carry out agricultural works on account of non-availability of water from the lakes. Therefore, the writ petitioner prays that dredging and de-silting of the lakes should be carried out. He further asserts that in spite of submitting a representation on 19.01.2021, no action has been taken.

¶15

Without examining the merits or the tenability of the representation dated 19.01.2021, the Tahsildar, the second respondent herein, is directed to consider the representation of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same by a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. Such a speaking order shall be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

W.P.No.4025 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra

¶17

¶18

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District. 2.The Tahsildar, Kundrathur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶19

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

¶20

3.The Principal Commissioner, Area Development Scheme, Kancheepuram District.

¶21

4.The Commissioner, Kundrathur Panchayat, Kancheepuram District.

¶22

+2ccs to Mr.M.Natarajan, Advocate, Sr.No. 12079 +1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No. 12500

¶23

W.P.No.4025 of 2021

¶24

GP(CO)
RMP(17/03/2021)

¶25

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

M.Natarajan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Natarajan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.M.Senthilnathan. Vs Reserve Bank of India

Smt.R.Sasikala Vs the District Collector

Gnanaprakasam Vs the District Collector

The State of Tamilnadu Vs B.Deepankumar

S.Thyagavalli Vs Authorized Officer

M/S. Sinduja and Co., Vs Authorised Officer