G.Gnanasundaram, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.09.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and W.M.P.No.14466 of 2016 G.Gnanasundaram

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Office of the Collectorate, Kancheepuram.

2.The Block Development Officer, Lathur Panchayat Union, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

3.Soundararajan 4.Koovathur Panchayat President, Koovathur Post, Cheiyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

...Respondents

(R4 - impleaded vide order dt.29.09.2022 made in WMP.19857/2016 in WP.16878/2016 by RSMJ,KBJ) 1/6

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2016 and to take action against the illegal construction put up by the 3rd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar for R2 & R4 Mr.M.L.Ramesh for R3

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:- "directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2016 and to take action against the illegal construction put up by the 3rd respondent." 2.Mr.M.L.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the necessary planning permission has been obtained for 2/6

construction of shop on 03.09.2007 and for construction of residential building on 10.09.2020. He would also contend that the petitioner who sued for declaration of title and injunction in respect of this very property having failed before the civil Court is trying to wreck vengeance by filing this writ petition. The copies of planning permission as well as the revenue documents that stand in the name of the 3rd respondent have also been filed. 3.Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the planning permission have been obtained only for the ground floor but the 3rd respondent is putting up construction in the first floor. 4.The prayer sought is for a mandamus to take action for construction in violation or deviation of the sanctioned plan.

We see no necessity to keep this writ petition pending, since we find that the pendency of this writ petition has been misused and the Block Development Officer has suspended the planning permission granted to the 3rd respondent because of the pendency of this writ petition.

planning permission or any un-authorized construction that is put up by the 3rd respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(R.S.M.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 29.09.2022 kkn Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking 4/6

To:- 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Office of the Collectorate, Kancheepuram.

2.The Block Development Officer, Lathur Panchayat Union, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

3.Koovathur Panchayat President, Koovathur Post, Cheiyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

5/6

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

KKN and W.M.P.No.14466 of 2016 29.09.2022 6/6