Therefore, the petitioner in the year 2001, has given a representations to the 3rd respondent to not to put up any construction in his land. Inspite of his objection, the construction was made. It is further alleged by the petitioner that if the respondents want to acquire his land, they should invoke appropriate Land Acquisition Act by giving proper notice. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached this Court and filed W.P.No.213/2013 to remove the Anganvadi Noon Meal Centre constructed in the petitioner's property, wherein the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the concerned respondent and the said official was directed to dispose of the same. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent herein, after considering the entire materials, held that the Anganvadi Noon Meal Center was constructed in his patta land wrongly and therefore, it has to be removed. Against the said order of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent has preferred appeal before the 1st respondent, wherein the 1st respondent vide impugned order held that removing of the Anganvadi is highly impossible and therefore, alternative proposal was recommended by the Sub Collector through his proceedings dated 07.08.2015 that instead of the said extent of land where the Anganvadi was constructed, alternative site land in S.F.No.137/2, New S.F.No.137/3 out of 0.02.5 hectares 0.60 sq.m was allotted in favour of the petitioner and further the 1st respondent has also reversed the finding of the 2nd respondent by setting aside the same. Aggrieved by the same, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6
