Madras High CourtWP/19662/2025dismissed

Sivayogi Anukulanatha Rajasekar Adikalar, v. The Director

2025-08-14Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice Sunder Mohan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.08.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and WMP No.22046 of 2025 Sivayogi Anukulanatha Rajasekar Adikalar .. Petitioner -vs1. The Director, Municipal Administration, Panagal Maligai, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner, HR & CE, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

3. The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Semmandalam, Cuddalore 607 001, Cuddalore District.

4. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Pudupalaiyam Main Road, Cuddalore 607 001, Cuddalore District.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Cuddalore Main Road, Virddhachalam 606 001.

6. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tittagudi 606 106.

7. The Commissioner, Tittagudi Municipality, Tittagudi 606 106, Cuddalore District.

8. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vaithiyanatha Koil, Tittagudi, Cuddalore District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 for the removal of illegal construction of compound wall by the 7th and 8th respondents right in the middle of the public street in Survey Nos.119, 121, 124 in Tittagudi Municipality, Cuddalore District and to restore the original width of the public streets in the above survey numbers for the safeguard of temple tank situated in survey number 120 by putting up iron rod fence around the tank within a time frame. For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondents :

Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Govt. Pleader for RR 1, 3, 5 and 6 :

Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Govt. Advocate for R-7 :

Mr.K.Karthikeyan Govt. Advocate (HR & CE) for RR 2, 4 and 8 * * * * *

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) As against the allegation of erection of compound wall by 8th respondent by encroaching public street, the survey report as collected by respondent No.5, which is placed before us, shows that though certain encroachment has been found on public street, the compound wall erected by respondent No.8 does not encroach upon public street.

2. Though learned counsel for the petitioner raises a dispute with regard to the correctness of the survey report, that cannot be gone into in the writ petition.

Petition, therefore, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application also stands dismissed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.)(SUNDER MOHAN, J.) 14.08.2025 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.

(sra) To

1. The Director, Municipal Administration, Panagal Maligai, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai.