SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY / – Appellant
Versus
C.ARIVALAGAN – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.A.(MD)Nos.859 to 863 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2, 1 to 3, 1, 2, 1 and 2 of 2013 and W.P.(MD)Nos.16695 of 2012, 10095, 11919, 14035, 16733, 16734 and 16924 of

2013 and 3791 and 5204 of 2014 and 3076 and 22895 of 2019 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 and 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 to 4 of 2013 and 1 and 2 of

2014 and W.M.P.(MD)No.18790 of 2023 W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2013

1.The Executive Authority / Commissioner, Theni-Allinagaram Local Planning Authority / Municipality, Theni-Alinagaram, Theni District.

2.The Commissioner, Theni-Allinagaram Municipality, Theni. ... Appellants Vs.

1.C.Arivalagan

2.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

3.The Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Governmentr of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

4.The Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai-02.

5.The Divisional Engineer, State Highways, Theni Division, Theni District.

6.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni.

7.The Superintending Engineer, Construction and Maintenance, State Highways Department, Madurai.

8.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District. ...Respondents (R7 and R8 are suo motu impleaded vide common order dated 11.10.2023 made in W.A.(MD)Nos.859 to 863 of 2013 etc., batch)

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.15119 of 2012, dated 30.04.2013 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan For R1 : Mr.J.Anandkumar For R2 to R8 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader W.P.(MD)No.16695 of 2012 R.Rajavel ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector Cum Chairman of Local Planning Authority, Theni, Theni District.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Madurai.

3.The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Theni, Theni District.

4.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai.

5.The Superintending Engineer, Construction and Maintenance, State Highways Department, Madurai.

6.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District. ...Respondents (R5 and R6 are suo motu impleaded vide Court dated 11.10.2023)

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from in any way disturbing the lawful possession of the lands belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.190 in T.S.No.2/1, Block No.1, situated at Allinagaram Village, Theni District except following due process of law.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel For Mr.C.Jegannathan For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader COMMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The batch of litigations have been instituted seeking multiple prayers, but issues raised revolved around public road between Theni and Periyakulam running through the villages Allinagaram, Vadaveeranaickanpatti and Unjampatti, which is a State Highway road.

2.It is not in dispute between the parties that the public road, which is now maintained, is under usage for about 43 years and certain portions of the private properties are utilized as road without any acquisition proceedings. Those land owners had graciously not claimed any compensation during the relevant point of time and allowed the Public Works Department to utilize the said portion of the road as public road.

3.On account of act of grabbing of private lands by the Government authorities without acquisition proceedings, the individuals have filed certain Writ Petitions claiming that there cannot be any further expansion of road or re-alignment, which would cause infringement of their property right and in the event of any such proposal, acquisition proceedings are to be initiated in the manner known to law.

4.The respective learned Senior Counsels and the learned counsel appearing on behalf o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top