Balakrishnan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01.02.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Balakrishnan ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Public Works Department, (Water Resources) Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Local Administration, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

4. The District Collector

5. The District Collector Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer

7. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Krishnagiri.

8. The Commissioner Krishnagiri Municipality Krishnagiri District.

..

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2023 and do not seize any articles and vacate the petitioner in the land in S.No.772, No.44/13, Shanthi Nagar, Krishnagiri Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District till the disposal of the petitioner representation by the 6th and 7th respondents as per G.O.No.465 (Revenue and Disaster Management Department) dated 27.11.2018.

For the Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For the Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R7 Mr.B.Anand for R8

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.M.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 7 and Mr.B.Anand, learned counsel for respondent 8.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the subject property in the year 1987 by registered document and is residing on the said property. It is submitted that the respondents are evicting the petitioner.

3. According to the respondents, the petitioner is occupying a waterbody.

4. A waterbody cannot be allowed to be encroached. In the light of that, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for an alternate site.

6. In case the petitioner is entitled for an alternate site under any executive policy, then the petitioner may approach the concerned authority. It is for the authority to consider the same in accordance with the law and policy.

7. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 01.02.2024 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No drm

To

1. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Revenue Department, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department, (Water Resources) Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Local Administration, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

4. The District Collector

5. The District Collector Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer

7. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Krishnagiri.

8. The Commissioner Krishnagiri Municipality Krishnagiri District.

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

(drm) 01.02.2024