Petitioner sought mandamus to stop his brother's construction alleging it lacked plan approval and encroached road land. Advocate Commissioner found no encroachment; court held petitioner not aggrieved and litigation ulterior, dismissing the writ petition with no costs.
None granted; writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
Sundaram
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The President, Ayarnappalli Panchayat, Halaseebam Village and Post, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Dharumapuri Road, Rayakottai Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
Page 1
... Respondents
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
4.Muthuraj
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to stop the illegal and unauthorised construction (Ground + three floors) being put up by the 4th respondent at Survey No.736/2, Halaseebam Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
| For Petitioner | : | Mr.C.H.Srikanth for Mr.M.P.Saravanan |
|---|---|---|
| For R1 and R2 | : | Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader |
| For R3 | : | Mr.D.Jaivenkatesh |
| Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO | ||
| For R4 | : | M/s.R.Poornima |
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct
the respondents 1 and 2 to stop illegal and unauthorised construction which is put up by the 4th respondent in S.No.736/2, Halaseebam Village,
Page 2
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
2.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows :
The petitioner states that an extent of 64 cents in S.No.736/2, Halaseebam Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, belonged to the petitioner's father by name T.Muthappa. The petitioner admits that his father T.Muthappa executed a Will bequeathing his properties in respect of an extent of 56 cents, after selling an extent of 8 cents. It is not in issue that the petitioner is in possession of the property bequeathed in his favour and the 4th respondent is also in enjoyment of the property bequeathed in his favour under the Will and has put up construction. The Will came into force on the death of petitioner's father on 29.11.2020 and the parties are in possession of the respective property that was given under the Will. The petitioner has now come forward with this writ petition by alleging that the 4th respondent, who is none else than his brother, has put up a construction without obtaining valid plan approval from the respondents 1 and 2.
Page 3
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
3.It is the case of the petitioner that the construction is in encroachment of road portion measuring about 2 ½ to 3 feet and that the 4th respondent has proceeded with construction despite objection raised by the petitioner. Since the 4th respondent has put up unauthorised construction without a plan approval, the petitioner states that the respondents 1 and 2 are expected to take action and has come forward with this writ petition.
4.A Status Report is filed by the 2nd respondent and this Court is convinced on seeing the report that the alleged violation is not so glaring or alarming so as to initiate immediate action. It was after noticing the nature of Status Report, this Court suggested the parties, namely petitioner and 4th respondent, to amicably settle their issues. The Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed by this Court, has submitted a report indicating that there is no encroachment by the 4th respondent in any road portion and therefore, the allegation that the construction is in encroachment of road portion, is false. The 4th respondent has obtained a plan and the construction is wholly within the property bequeathed to him under the Will executed by his father.
Page 4
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
5.From the report, this Court is unable to ascertain whether the construction put up by the 4th respondent is in violation of building plan approval granted to the 4th respondent. Assuming that the 4th respondent has put up construction in slight deviation of the approved plan, it may be open to the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action, after issuing notice in the manner known to law. At the instance of the petitioner, no positive directions can be issued by this Court, as the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and he has no building adjacent to the construction put up by the 4th respondent to complain any legal injury. This appears to be a litigation with ulterior motive and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
6.Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 23.04.2024
mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 5
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
To
1.The President, Ayarnappalli Panchayat, Halaseebam Village and Post, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
Page 6
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
mkn
W.P.No.6052 of 2022
23.04.2024
Page 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to stop alleged unauthorised construction by the fourth respondent without plan approval.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sundaram
The President, Ayarnappalli Panchayat, Halaseebam Village and Post, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District
The Block Development Officer, Shoolagiri Union
The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rayakottai Village
Muthuraj
S.S. Sundar
N. Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
