Disposed

Chinnakannu v. the Dist.Collector

Madras HC29 Jun 2021WP(MD)/10689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking removal of structures blocking an irrigation channel. Court dispensed with notice to private respondents, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue notices and conduct an enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Notice to be issued to all affected parties and an enquiry to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer within three months.

Chinnakannu Vs the Dist.Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.10689 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.06.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶3

W.P.[MD]No.10689 of 2021

Chinnakannu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pudukottai.

¶8

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Office, Pudukottai.

¶9

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Tahsildar Office, Illupur, Pudukottai.

¶10

4.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Viralimalai, Pudukottai.

¶11

5.Kannu Goundar

¶12

6.Rajappa Gounder ... Respondents

¶13

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the third and fourth respondents to remove the permanent structure erected by the fifth and sixth respondents in the Alagan Chetty Oorani situated in S.No.6 and its branch channel and consequently directing the third and fourth respondents to make necessary arrangements by restoring it to its original position for free flow of water over the Channel in order to utilize the same for agricultural purpose based on the representations dated 24.09.2019 and 03.08.2020.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Siddharthan For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.A.K.Manickam Standing Counsel for Government

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶17

With the consent on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.[MD]No.10689 of 2021

¶21

2.Heard Mr.M.Siddharthan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶22

3.The petitioner seeks for a direction upon the third and fourth respondents to remove the permanent structure erected by the fifth and sixth respondents in the Alagan Chetty Oorani situated in S.No.6 and its branch channel and for a consequential direction to make necessary arrangements by restoring it to its original position for free flow of water over the Channel in order to utilize the same for agricultural purpose based on his representations dated 24.09.2019 and 03.08.2020.

¶23

4.Since we propose to dispose of this Writ Petition without issuing any positive direction, notice to the fifth and sixth respondents is dispensed with.

¶24

5.We take note of the fact that the third respondent by memo dated 17.08.2020 has forwarded the representations given by the petitioner to the fourth respondent for necessary action. We direct the fourth respondent to take note of the representations, issue notice to the petitioner, fifth and sixth respondents and any other persons who may likely to be affected / interested, conduct an enquiry and proceed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

¶29

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

W.P.[MD]No.10689 of 2021

¶33

¶34

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pudukottai.

¶35

2.The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Office, Pudukottai.

¶36

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Tahsildar Office, Illupur, Pudukottai.

¶37

4.The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Viralimalai, Pudukottai.

¶38

W.P.[MD]No.10689 of 2021 29.06.2021

¶39

KB(06.07.2021) 3 P 5C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Chinnakannu v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnakannu v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Kasilakshmi & Co., Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Manuvel Raj Vs the District Collector

B.Ravi Vs the Honble Member Secretary

M/S.Vijay Durgambiga Construction Vs the Superintending Engineer (H)

Raja Boopathy.D Vs the Secretary

Velladathan, S/O. Devapitchai, Vs Uti - Infrestructure