Disposed

V.S.Kumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Sept 2023WP/25384/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct authorities to consider a representation concerning commercial construction on unapproved land. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation on merits within six weeks, noting the absence of a formal order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of and the property to consider the petitioner's representation of record within six weeks.

V.S.Kumar Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.25384 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P No.25384 of 2023

V.S.Kumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, The Chairman, Chairman Local Planning Authority, Cuddlore District, Cuddlore.

¶11

2.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Cuddlore District, Cuddlore.

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer, Parangipettai Block Panchayat Union, Parangipettai,

Cuddlore District.

4.R.Krishnamoorthy

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3^rd respondent to pass order on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.04.2023 submitted to the 3^rd

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.25384 of 2023

¶20

respondent and to conduct enquiry, and direct the 3^rd respondent not to entertain to construct building for commercial purpose on the unapproved lands with respect to the property situated at Villiyanur Village comprised in Survey No.49/25.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sivalingam For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader For Respondent 3 : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider

¶24

his representation dated 03.04.2023 and pass orders. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the 3^rd respondent not to entertain any application for construction of building for Commercial purpose on the unapproved land situated in S.No.49/25, Villiyanur village.

¶25

2.It is the case of the petitioner that there is a Civil Suit pending in

¶26

O.S.No.464 of 2022 on the file of Subordinate Court, Chidambaram in respect of 0.75 cents of land situated in R.S.No.49/25, Villiyanur village between him

¶27

and the 4^th respondent. It is his further case that the 4^th respondent is indulged

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.25384 of 2023

¶31

in construction of building without getting approval of the plot from the Department of Town and Country Planning. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.08.2023 to the respondents 1 & 3.

¶32

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent on instructions, submits that the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the 3^rd respondent and disposed of. He also produced the copy of the order allegedly passed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶33

4.A perusal of the order allegedly passed by the 3^rd respondent would suggest that it is only a report submitted by the Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer-1 Parangipettai taluk to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent has not passed any formal order disposing the representation of the petitioner. The report allegedly submitted by the Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer-1 would suggest that the building under construction was already approved by the concerned Panchayat. However, in the report of the Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer -1, there is no mention about approval of the plot. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the building is

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.25384 of 2023

¶37

being constructed in an unapproved plot. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.08.2023 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

5.With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶39

04.09.2023

¶40

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No nti

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.25384 of 2023

¶44

¶45

1.The District Collector, The Chairman, Chairman Local Planning Authority, Cuddlore District, Cuddlore.

¶46

2.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Cuddlore District, Cuddlore.

¶47

3.The Block Development Officer, Parangipettai Block Panchayat Union, Parangipettai, Cuddlore District.

¶48

5/6

¶49

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

W.P.No.25384 of 2023

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

nti

W.P No.25384 of 2023

¶54

04.09.2023

¶55

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

¶56

6/6

V.S.Kumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Kumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Vishnupriya Vs The Member Secretary

P.Pachamuthu, Vs The Commissioner

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director

K.Pasupathy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Ezhilarasan Vs The Joint Registrar of

M/s.Shintech Enginering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Micro and small Enterprises Facilitation Council