Dismissed

K.Anandaraman v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Oct 2022WP/26850/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice issued by Greater Chennai Corporation regarding alleged encroachment in a water body. The High Court rejected the challenge, noting the notice was consequential to a prior order requiring removal of encroachments, and directed the petitioner to establish ownership if patta exists for a different plot.

What did the court decide?

No order on notice; writ petition and connected WL dismissed.

K.Anandaraman Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.10.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

K.Anandaraman

.. Petitioner

The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai

¶13

The Regional Deputy Commissioner (North) Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai

¶14

The Zonal Officer Zone-3 (Madhavaram) Greater Chennai Corporation Thattankulam Road Chennai 600 060

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 15.02.2022 in letter

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

¶20

No.ZO.III.C.No.812/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to drop the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶21

For Petitioner :: Mr.M.Simon For Respondents :: Mr.A.Arun Babu Standing Counsel for R1 to R3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

This writ petition has been directed against the impugned notice dated 15.02.2022 issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner (North), Greater Chennai Corporation, the second respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to show cause under Section 220 read with Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 as to why the encroachment made by the petitioner in the Parappankulam (water body) at Door No.8, Singaravelan Nagar First Street, Puthagaram, Chennai 600 099 in T.S.No.68/4, Village No.57 of Puthagaram Village measuring an extent of 120.00m² should not be removed within 15 days.

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land covered in Survey No.68/6C is a patta land, because the Deputy Tahsildar (Land), Madhavaram had issued patta in the name of the pattadhar A.Bhagyalakshmi, Wife of Mr.K.Anandaraman, the petitioner herein. When the petitioner Mr.K.Anandaraman, being the legal heir of A.Bhagyalakshmi-pattadhar, who is no more, is entitled to maintain this writ petition so as to preserve and protect the patta land, the respondents cannot be allowed to demolish any structure belonging to the pattadhar. Therefore, the impugned notice shall be confined only with respect to the land covered in Town Survey No.68/4, but not to the land covered in Survey No.68/6C of Puthagaram Village.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, drawing our attention to the impugned notice dated 15.02.2022, submitted that when this Court, by order dated 07.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.2553 of 2021, had already directed the respondents to identify the encroachers in the land covered in Survey No.68/4, as it is falling within the Parappankulam

¶30

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

¶33

(water body), in pursuance of the direction issued in the said writ petition only, the present action has been taken and the impugned notice has been issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner (North), Greater Chennai Corporation calling upon the petitioner to show cause under Section 220 read with Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 as to why the encroachment made by the petitioner in the Parappankulam (water body) should not be removed within 15 days.

¶34

We are also able to see that the impugned notice is a consequential one issued in pursuance of the order dated 07.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.2553 of 2021. Since the Tahsildar, Madhavaram, in his proceedings dated 04.02.2022, has proceeded to remove the encroachments after undertaking survey and further identifying the encroachments, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to establish before the authorities that he is not an encroacher, as the patta has been issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Land), Madhavaram that the land covered in Survey

¶35

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

¶38

No.68/6C belongs to A.Bhagyalakshmi, the deceased wife of the petitioner.

¶39

Consequently, W.M.P.No.25929 of 2022 is also dismissed. However, there

¶40

is no order as to costs.

¶41

Speaking/Non speaking order (T.R.,A.C.J.) (D.K.K.,J.) Index : yes/no 10.10.2022 ss

¶42

¶43

The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai

¶44

The Regional Deputy Commissioner (North) Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Building, Chennai

¶45

The Zonal Officer Zone-3 (Madhavaram) Greater Chennai Corporation Thattankulam Road Chennai 600 060

¶46

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

¶49

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.26850 of 2022

10.10.2022

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Anandaraman v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Anandaraman 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

M/S.Sak Industries P Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Sak Industries P Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu

K.Velusamy Vs The Collector

N.Ramachandran Vs D.Yasodhai Ammal

S.Venkatesh Vs The District Collector

V.R.Mariappan Vs The Project Director