K.Ashok Kumar, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 15.09.2016 Coram:

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.14941 of 2016 K.Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The District Collector, Tiuppur District, Tiruppur.

2.The Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, Udumalpet.

3.Shirdi Sri Anandha Sai Public Charitable Trust, Udumalpet, rep. By its Chairman Er.K.Natarajan No.51/5, Mariappa Layout, Thillai Nagar, Udumalpet.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to remove the encroachment made in Municipal land in Thillai Nagar of Ward No.30 of Udumalpet Municipality by considering the representations of the petitioner dated 13.07.2015.

For Petitioner ::: Mr.Ponraj For Respondents ::: Mr.M.K.Subrmanian Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.A.S.Thambusamy for R.2 Mr.N.Thiagarajan for R.3

O R D E R

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The second respondent has complied with the onus of passing the requisite order.

3.The counter affidavit shows that apart from the third respondent temple, there are four other temples. On our query, we are informed that the other temples have been in existence for more than a period of 30 years or 60 years. As far as the third respondent temple is concerned, it has been in existence for about five years.

4. The present petition is really concerned only with the third respondent temple and not with the other temples which are stated to be quite old. Since the area is public land, either there should be an allocation/allotment of the land to the third respondent or the temple would have to be removed. Insofar as the issue of allotment of land to third respondent is concerned, we are informed that the second Bench issued directions on a petition filed by the third respondent, which is under consideration by the first respondent/District Collector. Learned counsel for the second respondent states that the issue of regularisation can only be taken up by the first respondent or the Municipal Council itself, and not by the second respondent.

5.We are thus of the view that since the matter pertains to public land, the direction of the second Bench should be complied with by the first respondent/District Collector and the question of allotment decided, failing which the order already passed by the second respondent would have to be given effect to. We also make it clear that if the temple has to stay on the land, then necessary provisions have to be made for Car Parking and Prevention of Noise Pollution (as per the norms laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India).

6. We close the proceedings with the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Asst.Registrar (CCC) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. The District Collector, Tiuppur District, Tiruppur.

2.The Commissioner, Udumalpet Municipality, Udumalpet.

+1 cc to Mr.T.Gopinath,advocate,sr.52504.

+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.52388 +1 cc to M/s.A.S.thambuswamy,advocate,sr.52258 +1 cc to Mr.N.Thiagarajan,advocate,sr.52420 ctr(co) krd 29/9 W.P.No.14941 of 2016