Dismissed

V.Rajan v. The Secretary

Madras HC23 Nov 2021WP/7519/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandamus to object to layout plan approval. The court held the petition infructuous as the authorities had already disposed of the objection via an order dated 13.10.2021, leaving liberty to challenge that order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 13.10.2021.

V.Rajan Vs The Secretary — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.11.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,

¶5

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

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

¶7

W.P.No.7519 of 2018 in WMP No.9362 of 2018

¶8

V.Rajan ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George,

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Member Secretary,

¶13

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai,

¶14

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶15

3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶16

4.The Superintending Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai – 3.

¶17

5.The Executive Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai – 3.

¶18

6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai – 3.

¶19

7.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone XI,

¶20

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

¶21

Corporation of Greater Chennai, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

¶22

8.The Executive Engineer, Zone XI, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Valasaravakkam,

¶23

Chennai – 600 087.

¶24

9.N.Narayanamurthy

¶25

10.D.Anusha ... Respondents

¶26

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 8 to consider the objection made by the petitioner's representation 12.02.2018 relating to proposed approval for layout plan submitted by the respondents 9 and 10 in respect of properties comprised in Survey No.169/2A Part, 170/1A1 Part, 170/2A Part, 170/3A Part, 170/4 Part totally measuring to an extent of 5.32 acres of land situated at Nolambur village, Ambattur Taluk (now Maduravoyal Taluk), Thiruvallur District and to take necessary action forthwith.

¶27

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvam for M/s.C.Prabhakaran

¶28

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent No.1

¶29

: Mrs.Veena Suresh for respondent No.2

¶30

: Mr.K.Raja Srinivas Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8

¶31

: Mr.R.Bharath Kumar respondent Nos.9 and 10

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

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

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the order dated 13.10.2021 whereby the objection made by the petitioner has been disposed of. The letter dated 13.10.2021 is taken on record.

¶36

In view of the above, the main prayer of the petitioner has been satisfied and, accordingly, the writ petition has become infructuous and is dismissed. However, it is with liberty to the petitioner to take the remedies, as are available to him, against the order dated 13.10.2021, if he so chooses. The dismissal of the writ petition would not come in his way for the aforesaid.

¶37

W.M.P.No.9362 of 2018 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

sasi

To:

1.The Secretary,

Housing and Urban Development,

¶46

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶47

2.The Member Secretary,

¶48

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai,

¶49

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶50

3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶51

4.The Superintending Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai – 3.

¶52

5.The Executive Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai – 3.

¶53

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

¶54

6.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Planning, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai – 3. 7.The Assistant Commissioner, Zone XI, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. 8.The Executive Engineer, Zone XI, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

¶55

+1cc to M/s.C.Prabakaran, Advocate Sr.60753 +1cc to M/s.P.Veena Suresh, Advocate Sr.60805 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.60704(30/05/2022)

¶56

W.P.No.7519 of 2018

¶57

ksm[co] srg 30/11/2021

¶58

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

V.Rajan v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajan v. The Secretary

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

M/s.Edge Qube Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Authorised officer

Academeic Resource Advancement Vs State of Tamil nadu

Thiru. J.D.Manonidhi Vs The Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner

Sri Srinivasa Labour Body works Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

M/s.Sony Music Entertainment India Private Ltd. Vs Next Radio Limited

S.Veeramani Vs The District Collector