Madras High CourtWP/7194/2017disposed of

Mr.Hema Suddhakar v. The District Collector,

2017-03-24Honourable The Acting Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice Rmt. Teekaa Raman3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.3.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.P.No.7194 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.7815 of 2017 Mr.Hema Suddhakar Petitioner

Versus

1 The District Collector Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District.

2 The Public Works department Officer Karunguzhi Town Panchayat and post Maduranthakam Taluk.

3 The Sub - Collector Madurantakam Kancheepuram District.

4 The Tahsildar Madurantakam Taluk Kancheepuram District.

5 The Revenue Inspector Karunguzhi Firka Maduranthakam Taluk.

6 The Village Administrative Officer Karunguzhi Maduranthakam Taluk.

7 Ravichandran Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing to remove the bund constructed in the canal in S.No.461 461/7A and 452 etc. Patta No.653 Karunguzhi Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District as per representation dated 08.09.2014.

For petitioner :

Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For R1 to R6 :

Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP.

R7 :

ORDER

(Order of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACJ.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R,Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6. Notice to 7th respondent is dispensed with.

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing to remove the bund constructed in the canal in S.No.461 461/7A and 452 etc. Patta No.653 Karunguzhi Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District as per representation dated 08.09.2014.

3. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of some agricultural lands at Karunguzhi Village, Madurantakam Taluk in Kancheepuram District, cultivating same with the water from Karunguzhi Lake which is now obstructed by the 7th respondent and hence, he had submitted a representation on 8.9.2014 to the respondent-authorities and finding no response for the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Therefore, it is for the respondents-authorities to initiate action on the representation of the petitioner, after issuing notice to the seventh respondent, and do the needful In accordance with law for removal of obstruction. However, it is for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents-authorities, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authorities shall do the needful, within a period of three months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssk.

To: