← Library
Madras High CourtWP/3776/2014dismissed as infructuous

R.Amudha Priya, v. The Commissioner

2018-01-02Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.3776 of 2014 & MP No.1 of 2014 R.Amudhapriya

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai -3.

2. The Zonal Officer, 15th Zone, Corporation of Chennai, Sholinganallur, Chennai.

.. Respondents Prayers: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pass order on the representation dated 29.01.2014 seeking withdrawl of laying of public road in the petitioner's absolute property situated at Survey No.508/2A, New Survey No.508/2A1C1C, which falls within the Division No.198 and Zone No.15 in the above mentioned address, to an extent of 10 Cents Shollinganallur, on merits as per law and within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : M/s.Jasmine Padma For Respondents : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran

ORDER

The petitioner has come up with the Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pass order on the representation dated 29.01.2014 seeking withdrawl of laying of public road in the petitioner's property situated at Survey No.508/2A, New Survey No.508/2A1C1C.

2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner of the property measuring 10 cents in Survey No.508/2A, New Survey No.508/2A1C1C in Sholinganallur Village. The respondents, without following the due process of law, attempted to lay a road in the patta land of the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had encroached upon the road belonging to the Corporation. The road was already laid in the month of April 2014. Hence, nothing survives in the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the said property, but the respondent-Corporation has laid a road in the land belonging to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking note of the facts of the case and in the light of the above submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents for redressal of her grievances and to work out the remedy in the manner known to law.

No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To

1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai -3.

2. The Zonal Officer, 15th Zone, Corporation of Chennai, Sholinganallur, Chennai.

+1 cc to M/s.L.Chandrakumar Advocate sr 361 W.P.No.3776 of 2014 aa11/01/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/