In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 14.12.2006 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN Writ Appeal No.548 of 2002 and WAMP. No.3345 of 2002 RM.Govindarajan ..Appellant ..vs.. Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai, represented by its Commissioner. ..Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order passed in W.P.No.21685 of 1993 dated 19.01.2001. - - - - - For Appellant : Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas - - - - - JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,)
The above Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge dated 19.01.2001 made in W.P.No.21685 of 1993, in and by which, the learned Judge, after considering the claim of the petitioner and the stand taken by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, dismissed the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.
3. It is the claim of the appellant / petitioner that it was the petitioner, who had put up building in his patta land. In such circumstances, the respondent Municipality has no power to demolish even a portion of the building, which lay upon the land, which was recorded as poramboke land. A counter affidavit filed by the Municipality before the learned Judge stating that there had been floods in the City of Madurai, that several residential areas got inundated and submerged due to the blockade of rain water channel and other drainage channels as well as irrigation channels and as a result, several houses were submerged. It is further stated that in view of the same, it became imperative to remove all encroachments in the channel area with a view to avoid recurrence of floods. The learned Judge accepted the factual information furnished by the Corporation and rejected the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Commissioner ..vs.. Chandrasekaran (1975(2) MLJ 251) before the learned single Judge as well as before us to show that if the land belongs to the Government, the Government alone has power and the Municipality has no power to take action.
5. We have verified the factual details available in the Division Bench decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the details mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, which was relied on by the learned Judge. Considering the explanation offered by the Commissioner and taking note of the urgency in clearing the obstructions for free flow of water in the channels, we are of the view that the action taken by the Commissioner cannot be faulted with. We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge and unable to accept the stand taken by the appellant. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WAMP.is closed.
gl
To
The Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
Madurai.
[PRV/8976]
