Disposed

E.S.Sahayam @ E. Iyappan v. The Director

Madras HC19 Jul 2024WP(MD)/11078/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the conversion of agricultural land into plots, the Madurai Bench directed the Director of Town and Country Planning to dispose of the petitioner's appeal under Section 76 of the TN T&C Planning Act within twelve weeks without adjudicating merits immediately.

What did the court decide?

Director, Town and Country Planning directed to dispose of the appeal filed under Section 76 of the TN T&C Planning Act within twelve weeks.

E.S.Sahayam @ E. Iyappan Vs The Director — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.11078 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.11078 of 2024

¶9

E.S.Sahayam @ E.Iyappan

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

1.The Director,

¶13

Vigilance & Anti Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandhur, Chennai-600 016.

¶14

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, (Near) Punnai Nagar, Nagercoil.

¶15

3.The Secretary of Government, Registration Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

¶16

4.The Secretary of Government, Housing & Urban Development, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

¶17

5.The Director, Town and Country Planning,

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.11078 of 2024

¶21

Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd & 4^th Floor, C & E Market Road, Koyembedu, Chennai-107.

¶22

6.The District Registrar, Kanyakumari Registration District, Nagercoil.

¶23

7.A.Vijayan 8.J.Sylvester Sornalatha 9.K.Sethu Ramalingam 10.G.T.Anna Durai 11.Albert Robinson 12.Jothibasu 13.J.Balasubramaniyam 14.E.Prasanth

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2024 seeking to take action against the respondents 7 to 14.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal For R1, R3 to R6 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶27

ORDER

¶28

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶29

According to the petitioner, the lands in R.S.Nos.384, 385, 389, 390,

¶30

392, 352, 353, 354, 355 and 356 in Putheri Revenue Village, Agastheeswaram

¶31

Page 2 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.11078 of 2024

¶34

Taluk, Kanyakumari District are all agricultural lands, which are converted into plots by dumping rigor sands by one Palraj, who is the Proprietor of Sri Krishna Foundation, though there is a prohibition to convert agricultural lands into plots. Therefore, the petitioner made representations dated 16.02.2024 and 04.04.2024 to take action against the erring officials. Since the same have not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 before the 5^th respondent to take necessary action for cancellation of the approval already granted by the authorities concerned. He would further submit that it would suffice, if the said appeal is directed to be disposed of by the 5^th respondent within a period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶36

3.The learned Government Pleader for the official respondents would submit that if the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending with the 5^th respondent, the same would be disposed of within the stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.11078 of 2024

¶40

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to direct the 5^th respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 04.04.2024 filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶42

costs.

¶43

[D.K.K., A.C.J.] & [R.V., J.] 19.07.2024 (½)

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶45

Yuva

¶46

¶47

1.The Director, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandhur, Chennai-600 016.

¶48

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, (Near) Punnai Nagar, Nagercoil.

¶49

Page 4 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.11078 of 2024

¶52

3.The Secretary of Government, Registration Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

¶53

4.The Secretary of Government, Housing & Urban Development, St.George Fort, Chennai-9.

¶54

5.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd & 4^th Floor, C & E Market Road, Koyembedu, Chennai-107.

¶55

6.The District Registrar, Kanyakumari Registration District, Nagercoil.

¶56

Page 5 of 6

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.(MD) No.11078 of 2024

¶59

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.

¶60

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶61

Yuva

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.11078 of 2024

19.07.2024

(½)

Page 6 of 6

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

E.S.Sahayam @ E. Iyappan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.S.Sahayam @ E. Iyappan v. The Director

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

Selvakumar C Vs The State Government

Rukmani Vs The District Collector

M.Saravanakumar Vs The Commmissionerate of Prohibition and Excise Department