Allowed

R.Udayakumar v. the Commissioner

Madras HC23 Aug 2021WP(MD)/1646/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation to remove an illegal hut constructed by the third respondent on public land. Holding that the authorities neglected their duty, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing immediate removal.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Municipal Corporation to remove the third respondent from the public road within three weeks from the date of the order.

R.Udayakumar Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1646 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.08.2021 CORAM :

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.1646 of 2020 and WMP(MD)No.1361 of 2020

R.Udayakumnar

... Petitioner

vs.

1)The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli 620001. 2)The Assistant Commissioner, Srirengam Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Srirengam, Tiruchirappalli 620 006. 3)V.Sankaran ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 1 and 2 to remove the hut put up illegally by the 3^rd Respondent on the road comprised in T.S.No.1349 part situated on the west of plot No.24 comprised in T.S.No.1350/1A measuring an extent of 2980 square feet north south on the west 73-1/2' on the east 75-1/2 east west on both sides 40' situated at Thimmaraya Samuthram Village, Srirengam Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District and with the help of police within a specified time that may be fixed by this Honourable High Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Shangar Murali For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Standing Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu For R3 : Mr.R.Ravindran

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice ]

¶13

The petitioner complains of the failure on the part of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps and follow-up action despite discovering that the 3^rd respondent had encroached on Corporation land and had blocked a part of the public road.

¶14

2.The first and second respondents are represented by Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel who seeks sometime for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.1646 of 2020

¶17

necessary action to be taken.

¶18

3.The third respondent is represented by Mr.R.Ravindran who claims that a suit has been instituted before the Sub Court, Trichy by way of O.S.No.2 of 2020 in such regard. However, it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that a previous suit had been dismissed and there is no question of any subsequent suit being instituted in respect of the same matter.

¶19

4.It is evident from the papers appended to the petition, particularly, an order dated October 09, 2019 and the subsequent order of November 14, 2019 that the third respondent has been required to remove himself and free the public road of encroachment, but the third respondent has refused to do so.

¶20

5.Accordingly, W.P(MD)No.1646 of 2020 is allowed by directing the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation through the first and second respondents herein to take immediate appropriate steps for the physical removal of the third respondent from the public road within a period of three weeks from date. However, if any interim order is passed in any suit instituted by the third respondent, the respondent authorities will abide by such orders. It is needless to say that the third respondent will not attempt to obtain any order in the suit without previous notice to the Corporation.

¶21

6.There will be no order as to costs. WMP(MD)No.1361 of 2020 is closed.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

bala

1)The Commissioner,

Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli 620001.

¶28

2)The Assistant Commissioner, Srirengam Zone, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Srirengam, Tiruchirappalli 620 006.

¶29

W.P(MD)No.1646 of 2020 23.08.2021 RD(1.09.2021) 2P 3C

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

R.Udayakumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Udayakumar 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

Mithra Vs the State Rep by

V.Ravichandran Vs K.Karunanidhi

M/S.S.R.Rpaper Board Vs Smt.Sa.Usha

Sree Narayana Textile Pvt. Ltd., Vs Industrial Development Bank of India

M/S.Veetra Computer Solution Vs M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank

N.P.v.Narasimman Vs the District Collector