Disposed

S.Ravindran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Madras HC10 Feb 2023WP/3850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, directed the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a layout approval and pass appropriate orders within one month. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2022 and pass appropriate orders within one month.

S.Ravindran Vs The Director of Town and Country… — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3850 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

W.P.No.3850 of 2023

S.Ravindran

... Petitioner

Versus

The Director of Town and Country Planning, Vellore Region, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶11

The Joint Director of town and Country Planning, No. 2, Manallur pettai Salai, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶12

The Block Development officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamali District.

¶13

The Sub-Registrar Thiruvanthipuram, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to cancel the layout approval in DTCP No. 306 (R) dated 13.03.2018 in respect of survey Nos. 76 / 2C 77 / 2C part and 491 / 1B measuring an extent of 3.08 acres at Palli village, Cheyyar panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District by considering the petitioners representation dated 12.12.2022.

¶16

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.3850 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sellapandian For Respondents : Mr.Karthik Jeyanth RR1,2 & 4 Mr.T.N.C.Kausik, AGP For R3

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent

¶21

to cancel the layout approval in DTCP No. 306 (R) dated 13.03.2018 in respect of survey Nos. 76 / 2C, 77 / 2C part and 491 / 1B measuring an extent of 3.08 acres at Palli village, Cheyyar panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District by considering the petitioners representation dated 12.12.2022.

¶22

Mr.Karthick Jeganath, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1,2 and 4 and submitted that the second respondent will consider the petitioner's representation and appropriate orders will be passed on merits.

¶23

In view of the limited request sought for by the petitioner, this Court directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.3850 of 2023

¶26

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

10.02.2023

¶28

rli Index : Yes/No To

¶29

The Director of Town and Country Planning, Vellore Region, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶30

The Joint Director of town and Country Planning, No. 2, Manallur pettai Salai, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶31

The Block Development officer, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamali District.

¶32

The Sub-Registrar Thiruvanthipuram, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶33

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.3850 of 2023

¶35

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

rli

W.P.No.3850 of 2023

10.02.2023

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Ravindran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ravindran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

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

N.Kulasekaran Vs The Commissioner and Secretary to Government

B.Murali Naarasiman Vs The Commissioner and Director of

B.Krishnamma Vs The District collector

Syed Ameen Ahamed Vs The District collector

Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Vs State Industries Promotion

Saravanan Vs The Chief Forest Officer