Madras High CourtWP/1741/2023disposed of

Madhan Mohan v. The Commissioner Of Chennai

2024-04-03Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.04.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD M.Madhan Mohan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation of Chennai.

2. The Executive Engineer Zone - 14, Corporation of Chennai Puzhuthivakkam Main Road Puzhithivakkam, Chennai - 600 091.

3. The Tahsildar Sholinganallur Taluk, Sholinganallur.

4. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Chennai.

5. The Collector Chennai District, George Town, Chennai.

6. The Commissioner St. Thomas Mount, Panchayat Union Chitlapakkam, Chennai.

7. The Managing Director and Chairman CMWSSB, Chennai.

8. Karthikeyapuram 12th Street Residents Welfare Association Madippakkam Rep. by P.Loganathan Authorized signatory Plot No.1A, Flat No.1, Vaibhogam Homes Karthikeyapuram 12th Street, Madipakkam Chennai - 91.

[R8 impleaded vide order dated 05.01.2024 in W.P.No.30928 of 2023 in W.P.No.1741 of 2023] .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachment on 12th Street Kathikeyapuram, Madipakkam, Chennai - 600 091 and restore the same to 30 feet road forever. For the Petitioner : M/s.C.Umashankar For the Respondents : Mr.A.Arun Babu Standing Counsel for R1 and R2 Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath Government Advocate for R3 and R5 Ms.P.Veena Suresh for R4 Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for R6 Ms.S.Deepika for R7 Mr.P.James Victor Rajkumar for R8

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard M/s.C.Umashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Arun Babu, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader assisted by Mr.K.Karthik Jegannath, learned Government Advocate for respondents 3 and 5, Ms.P.Veena Suresh, learned counsel for respondent 4, Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate for respondent 6, Ms.S.Deepika, learned counsel for respondent 7 and Mr.P.James Victor Rajkumar, learned counsel for respondent 8.

2. Learned State Government Pleader submits that there are encroachments on the either side of the road. According to the learned State Government Pleader, the land in S.Nos.184/4 and 186/15 are anadeenam lands. The same is disputed by the petitioner.

3. In a writ petition, we are not going to decide about the classification of the lands. According to the learned State Government Pleader, there are encroachments made by the private respondent, as well as the petitioner and by other persons also.

4. Learned State Government Pleader submits that action, in accordance with law, would be initiated for removal of encroachments preferably within a period of three months from today.

5. If notices are issued by the Government Authorities, it will be open for the alleged encroachers to file reply to the same, which would be considered by the authorities before proceeding further.

6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.1856 of 2023 is closed.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 03.04.2024 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No drm To