Dismissed

Saraswathy v. the District Collector

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP/5384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing stopping of dishonest drainage widening work on her property. Court held mere marking of land for drain extension created apprehension of loss and directed the Corporation Commissioner to refrain from proceeding unless compensation was decided or drain width restricted.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent/Corporation Commissioner not to proceed with widening work or land acquisition without deciding компенсации for the petitioner's land or restricting the existing storm

Saraswathy Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶7

Mrs.Saraswathy ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Collector Collector Office Coimbatore – 641018.

¶10

2.The Corporation Commissioner Corporation Commissioner Office Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office Coimbatore South Taluk Coimbatore.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2024 by stopping the widening of the drainage work since they have not followed the acquisition procedure by issuing notice or compensation for the petitioner's land situated at Door No.161, Kamarajar Road, Uppilipalayam (Post), Coimbator measuring about 280 sq.ft.

¶14

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

¶15

1/7

¶16

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Thirumalai For Respondents : Mr.M.Venkateswaran, Spl.GP for R1 to R3. Mr.N.Umapathi, Standing counsel for R2.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that she purchased the property to an extent of 1750sq.ft by way of two registered sale deeds vide Doc.Nos.1104 and 1105 of 1993 dated 04.03.1983. Thereafter, she had put up the superstructure for 1400sq.ft and paying necessary tax to the authorities. During the year 1995, the 2 nd respondent formed drainage formation work to an extent of 70sq.ft. For which, the petitioner's husband had earlier given a complaint and the petitioner's husband died 11years back. Now, the respondents 2 and 3 have marked the petitioner's land for about 280sq.ft for widening of drainage without her consent or notice or intimation. On 06.02.2024, the petitioner sent a detailed representation for stopping the widening work for drainage formation. As on date, the respondents have not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner, hence, the present writ petition.

¶20

2. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent filed a counter wherein it is stated that ongoing reconstruction of storm water drain

¶21

2/7

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶24

in Ward No.54, Kamarajar Road, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation East zone under the capital Grant Fund 2023-2024 was sanctioned for a length and width of 2,204m and 2.00m respectively vide Administration Sanction No.21062/2023/SS2 dated 07.08.2023 and Technical Sanction No.4054/2023/MD2 dated 11.08.2023, the work is being carried out under the funding of Capital Grant Fund 2023-2024, the work order was also issued to M/s.Abbi Associates vide Roc.No.4054/2023/MD2 dated 21.09.2023. The marking of “CH1640” made on the compound wall of the petitioner's property is merely a chainage reference number used to mark the length and slope of the drain in font of the petitioner's property. The said Kamarajar Road is an old arterial road that connects two National Highways viz., 544 and 81. The present storm water drain is in existence even prior to purchase of land by the petitioner and the construction of said storm water drain is false and the claim of widening the work is also baseless. The question of land acquisition and the award of compensation does not arise as the petitioner filed this petition solely on her assumption and apprehension that her property may be forcibly acquired. The petitioner has no issue with the presence of storm water drain at the existing width and the Corporation has no plans to change the width of the aforementioned storm water drain. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

3/7

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶28

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special

¶29

Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

4. This Court by an order dated 08.03.2024, directed the 3 rd respondent to file a report along with FMB Sketch and other revenue records pertaining to the property. The third respondent by a letter in Na.Ka.783/2024/A5 dated 07.06.2024 filed a report after obtaining a report from the VAO, Revenue Inspector and Town Sub Inspector of Survey along with the FMB Sketch, rough sketch, photographs and Fazili of the Village, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land and there is an existing storm water drain in the Eastern side of the land. In the said property a width of 0.8m to the South and a width of 0.4m to the North i.e., an area of 0.006sq.m and also proposed to be widen the old sewage canal to a width of 1.6mtr to the South and a width of 1.3mtr to the north have been marked to an extent of 15.sq.mtr in addition to the existing old canal. The existing old waste water channel is 6sq.mtr and the proposed marked area for extension to the existing canal is 15sq.mtr. The said report has been

¶31

4/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶34

prepared based on the report and the rough sketch given by the Town Surveyor with the assistance of Revenue Inspector and the VAO.

¶35

5. From the records, it is clear that the petitioner's land has been

¶36

marked by the respondents for extension of existing storm water drain and the respondents denied that they are not going to do so, but mere marking is

¶37

not sufficient and it is only an apprehension of the petitioner, the contention of the respondents is not acceptable by this Court. If the respondents are going to use more lands belonging to the petitioner, it will once again make a loss to the petitioner. This Court directs the 2 nd respondent/Corporation Commissioner not to proceed further unless and until they decide the issue

¶38

by payment of compensation to the petitioner for the land used by the respondents or to restrict the same length and width of the existing storm water drain.

¶39

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

¶40

26.07.2024.

¶41

Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No tsh

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶45

¶46

The District Collector Collector Office Coimbatore – 641018.

¶47

2.The Corporation Commissioner Corporation Commissioner Office Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶48

3.The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office Coimbatore South Taluk Coimbatore.

¶49

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

¶50

6/7

¶51

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶52

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶53

tsh

¶54

W.P.No.5384 of 2024

¶55

26.07.2024

¶56

7/7

¶57

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

Saraswathy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswathy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.K.Nagaraj Vs the Commissioner

M/S.Indusind Bank Ltd., Vs the Joint Transport Commissioner (Rules)

K.Babu Vs the Regional Transport Officer

M.Durdana Vs the Commissioner

S.J.Pappaiyan Vs the Member Secretary

S.Ashraf Bee Vs Tamilnadu Wakf Board