Disposed

R.Krishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Jan 2024WP/12947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing authorities to remove encroachments by a temple and trees before his house. The notice issued under repealed provisions was found defective; the Corporation agreed to issue a fresh notice. Writ petition disposed with liberty for the fourth respondent to reply and further steps to follow.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to issue fresh notice eliciting explanation from fourth respondent; reply and further steps permitted.

R.Krishnan Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.01.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

R.Krishnan

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Chennai District at Chennai-600 001.

¶13

2.Corporation of Greater Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶14

3.The Zonal Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-IX, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶15

4.Umapathy .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments of the 4^th respondent viz., “Sri Aadhi

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

¶20

Sakthi Vinayagar Temple, Peepal and Neem Trees”, situated in front of petitioner's house bearing Old Door No.28A, New Door No.29, Vannarpathai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶21

For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Premkumar

¶22

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for respondent No.1

¶23

: Mr.A.C.Manibharathi for respondents 2 and 3

¶24

: Mr.Hem Kumar for M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh for respondent No.4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

We have heard Mr.K.Premkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for respondent No.1; Mr.A.C.Manibharathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Mr.Hem Kumar, learned counsel for M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

¶31

Encroachment by the fourth respondent is alleged in front of

¶32

the petitioner's house bearing Old Door No.28A, New Door No.29, Vannarpathai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that notice under

¶34

Section 220 read with Section 222 of the CCMC Act IV of 1919 is already issued to the fourth respondent for removal of encroachment.

¶35

On a perusal of the said notice, we find that the said notice is

¶36

issued under the Repeal Act.

¶37

At this juncture, learned counsel for the Corporation submits

¶38

that the Corporation will issue a fresh notice eliciting explanation from the fourth respondent

¶39

If any such fresh notice is received by the fourth respondent,

¶40

the fourth respondent may file his reply to the said notice. Depending upon the reply received, further steps be taken.

¶41

Page 3 of 5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

¶44

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 11.01.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector, Chennai District at Chennai-600 001.

¶49

2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

¶50

3.The Zonal Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-IX, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶51

Page 4 of 5

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

¶54

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.

bbr

W.P.No.12947 of 2022

11.01.2024

___________ Page 5 of 5_

¶59

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

R.Krishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Krishnan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Govindasamy Vs The District Collector

R.Rajendiran Vs the Director

N.Rajesh Vs Office of the Ombudsman

V.Velu Vs the District Collector

Mr. S.Sakthi Vs the Registrar

G.Anbazhagan, Vs Member Secretary