Dismissed

V.Rajarathinam v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC2 Mar 2022WP/420/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking removal of encroachment on public property. The petition was dismissed as infructuous based on the Special Government Pleader's submission that the encroachments had already been removed and an action taken report was on record.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

V.Rajarathinam Vs The Executive Engineer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.03.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.P.No.420 of 2022

¶8

V.Rajarathinam

¶9

.. Petitioner/ Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Executive Engineer Kosasthalai River Basin Division Public Works Department Tiruvallur.

¶12

The Tahsildar Tiruvallur Taluk Tiruvallur.

¶13

The Block Development Officer Poondi Panchayat Union Poondi Tiruvallur Taluk and District.

¶14

G.Ambrose

¶15

.. Respondents/ Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made by the 4^th Respondent, particularly in Indian Bank Street, Poondi Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District.

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan

¶18

For the Respondents

¶19

: Mrs.R.Anitha

¶20

Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to remove the encroachments made in the public property.

¶25

Learned Special Government Pleader submits that encroachments have been removed. An action taken report has been filed and the same is taken on record.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.477 and 1300 of 2022 are also dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

kpl/drm To:

¶32

The Executive Engineer

¶33

Kosasthalai River Basin Division Public Works Department Tiruvallur.

¶34

The Tahsildar

¶35

Tiruvallur Taluk

¶36

Tiruvallur.

¶37

The Block Development Officer Poondi Panchayat Union Poondi

¶38

Tiruvallur Taluk and District.

¶39

+1 cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate Sr.NO. 13983 +1 cc to Mr.J.Prakasam, Advocate Sr.NO. 14048 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 14100

W.P.No.420 of 2022

mg(CO)

A.SK(08/03/2022)

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

V.Rajarathinam v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajarathinam v. The Executive Engineer

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

K.Venkatesan Vs The District collector (chennai District)

S.Ramasamy Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Chella Perumal (Died) Vs Gopalakrishnan

M.Yesu Vs Michel Albert

R.Babu Vs The Controller of Examiner

B.Sivakumar Vs The Vice Chancellor