BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD)No.10473 of 2008 Saradha . . . Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Commissioner, Aruppukkottai Municipality, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District. . . . Respondents PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate protection to the petitioner to remove the compound wall put up by the petitioner's vendor as per the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.5054/07/F1 dated 20.12.2007 within the time that may be stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Perumal ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate * * * * :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
provide adequate protection to the petitioner to remove the compound wall put up
by the petitioner’s vendor as per the proceedings of the second respondents in
Na.Ka.No.5054/07/F1 dated 20.12.2007 within the time that may be stipulated by
this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this writ petition would run thus:
This case is having a chequered career of its own. It appears, earlier
the second respondent Municipality vide its notice dated 20.09.2005 in
Na.Ka.No.5054/2005/F1, directed the petitioner’s husband viz., Sankarappan to
remove the encroachment on the road margin, by removing the compound wall. It
appears, there were other encroachments made by others persons similarly on the
road margin. Earlier, in W.P.No.3819 of 2006, this Court on 04.08.2006 ordered
thus:
“5. It is not clear why the writ petition has been filed by the wife of
the encroacher stating that she wants the encroachment to be removed and in
particular, she seeks a direction to implement the notice dated 20.09.2005 which
notice according to the respondent municipality is issued to the husband of the
petitioner said to have encroached public property. Therefore, it is
petitioner, who has to remove the encroachment before coming to the Court for a
direction for removal of other encroachments. Since the petitioner’s husband is
said to have encroached on public property, she has to first set an example by
removing encroachments. It is also open to the respondent to take action
against the other encroachers as well as the petitioner’s husband in accordance
with law and by following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported
in 2005(2) CTC 741 (Ramaraju, T. – vs. – The State of Tamil Nadu).
Since, the second respondent Municipality was inactive, the petitioner filed
Contempt Petition No.291 of 2007 and this Court on 16.11.2007 passed the
following order:
“Directing the respondent to take effective fresh steps to remove the
encroachment following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramaraju,
T. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu – 2005(2) CTC 741, the Contempt Petition stands
closed. The petitioner is also directed to forthwith remove the encroachment,
he has made”.
Instead of the second respondent Municipality taking steps to demolish the
compound wall and remove the encroachment and regain possession of the road
margin, once again they have chosen to issue the impugned notice dated
20.12.2007.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that the second respondent
Municipality instead of taking action by itself as directed by this Court
earlier, is indulging in delaying tactics of issuing the impugned notice,
directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment. As such, the second
respondent Municipality is directed to take suitable action immediately and
comply with the earlier two orders of this Court and do the needful within a
period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
smn
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Commissioner,
Aruppukkottai Municipality,
Aruppukkottai,
Virudhunagar District.