1. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to remove the encroachment in the Pillaiyar Koil Street, Viswanathapuram, Guduvancheri, belonging to Nandivaram-Guduvancheri Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District.

2. It is seen that the third respondent has issued notice dated 03.05.2004 to the fourth respondent for removal of encroachment in question. In the typed set of papers, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the photos of encroachment and the sketch to show that there is encroachment. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 will take steps to remove the encroachment and demolish the building in question, if the building has been constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan. It is clear from a perusal of the materials available on record that the fourth respondent has encroached on the road.

3. With regard to the encroachment, it is useful to refer a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P.Aravinda Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and others, W.P.No.28311 of 2016, dated 04.10.2016, wherein the Division Bench held as follows in paragraph 7:

"7. However, before parting with this case, it would be useful to refer to the direction of this Court, in W.P.38432 of 2015, etc., wherein, by order dated 07.09.2016, this Court has observed that very many encroachments are found throughout the city of Chennai, which requires to be dealt with sternly, but for the ineffective steps taken by the authorities concerned, such encroachments would not have continued. It is high time that dynamic action needs to be taken by the authorities concerned so as to avoid public lands being usurped by unscrupulous elements. This Court, in the abovesaid writ petition, has given certain guidelines for the authorities to follow in respect of any encroachments being brought to its notice. The relevant portion of the order, for better clarity is extracted hereunder:

"12. Whenever it is brought to notice that there is land encroachment on the roads or in any other place or violation of construction, it is open to the authorities concerned to call for the following details from the violator by issuing appropriate notice:

(a) Registered Deed based on which the property has devolved upon the person;

(b) Extent of square feet mentioned in the Schedule property;

(c) Width of the road;

(d) Actual constructed area;

(e) Approved plan;

(f) Whether set back space has been provided as per the Plan/Rules."

4. In the above extracted paragraph mentioning W.P.No.38432 of 2015, etc., batch, dated 07.09.2016, the Division Bench of this Court further observed that it is the bounden duty of the person who receives the notice to furnish all the details called for, failing which, it has to be presumed that there are violations and it is open to the authorities to act as per law. Wherever there are encroachments on road, road width has got to be restored. If there is no Building Plan, deviations, if any, have got to be removed by the petitioner. If not, the authorities are entitled to remove the same in accordance with law, recovering the demolition costs from the encroacher.

5. Further, in yet another Division Bench decision of this Court, in the case of M/s.Aara Silk, rep. by its Partner Vs. The Principal Director, Southern Command, IDES Guest House, Cross Road, Pune, Maharashtra State and the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 043, in W.P.No.29985 of 2016, dated 29.09.2016, it is held as follows in paragraph 20:

"20. It is pertinent to note that recently, the First Bench of this Court (S.K.Kaul, CJ and R.Mahadevan,J) in Contempt Petition No.1769 of 2015 and Contempt Petition No.2166 of 2015 (Suo Motu), took up a matter pertaining to demolition of the violated portions of a building and insisted that the unauthorised constructions are decimate