G.Saroja, v. The Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.07.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM WP.No.13974 of 2018 G.Saroja

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003.

2. Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Zone -6, (Near Aynavaram Depot), Chennai - 23.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

4. The Inspector of Police, K2, Aynavaram Police Station, Aynavaram, Chennai - 600 023.

5. Shankar Kumar

...Respondents

PRAYER:

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the coconut tree falling on the building situated at Door No.31/81, Mylappa Gramani Street, Aynavaram, Chennai - 600 023. For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, Standing Counsel, for RR1 & 2 Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, Spl.G.P. for RR3 & 4 Mr.J.Thilagaraj, R5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the coconut tree in the property bearing Door No.31/81, Mylappa Gramani Street, Aynavaram, Chennai.

2. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent was settled before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. The compromise memo was filed by the parties dated 25.07.2018, has been enclosed along with the mediation report. The relevant portion of the said compromise memo reads as follows:

"3. Mr.T.J.Sankar Kumar, the 5th respondent, agrees to remove the coconut tree that has grown in his premises, within four months from today, i.e., on or before 25th November 2018. The conceding of the 5th respondent to remove the coconut tree is made without prejudice his right of initiating action vis a vis the unauthorized constructions raised by the writ petitioner."

3. The said compromise memo is recorded. In the light of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is closed and the said compromise memo shall form part of the order. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To

1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

2. The Inspector of Police, K2, Aynavaram Police Station, Aynavaram,Chennai - 600 023.

+2cc to Mr.Thilagaraj, Advocate SR.NO.51740 +1cc to Mr.Rajendran, Advocate SR.NO.52104 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.NO.52364 +1cc to Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate SR.NO..51650 MG(CO) sm:16.8.2018 WP.No.13974 of 2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/