Nazar Ali, S/O.Kamal Batcha, v. The District Collector,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.09.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.[MD].No.15822 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.11605 of 2016 Nazar Ali : Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Municipal Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram.

3.Karthikeyan : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments on the public pathway at T.S.No.15, Block No.27, 'G' ward, behind L.I.C., Bharathi Nagar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For Respondent No.1 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.M.Kannan

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.] The writ petitioner, namely, one Nazar Ali, has filed this Public Interest Litigation, seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to remove the encroachments on the public pathway at T.S.No.15, Block No.27, 'G' ward, behind L.I.C., Bharathi Nagar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent has encroached upon a public pathway and put up constructions.

3. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has not filed this Writ Petition in public interest and only to ventilate his private grievance, he filed this litigation, which is not maintainable. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that one Sakina Beevi is the owner of the property in question and it was mentioned as "Theru" and it is not under the maintenance of the Municipality.

4. Apart from this, the petitioner has not given any specific survey number, whereas, he has produced the documents relating to Survey No.94/1B part. However, a perusal of the revenue records would show that it belongs to private party, who is the erstwhile owner of the third respondent. Since it is a private dispute between the parties, the Writ Petition, under the guise of Public Interest Litigation, is not maintainable. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Municipal Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram. +1 cc to M/s.M.Kannan, Advocate in SR.No.57414 +1 cc to The Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 57909 CSL/SK-SKN/07.10.2016: 2P/5c Order made in W.P.[MD].No.15822 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.11605 of 2016 Dated: 29.09.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/