SUBRAMANI Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing second respondent to remove the Pillaiyar temple situated in the 20 ft. passage in 1st Street, Shantipuram, Thirumullaivoyal Village, Avadi, within a stipulated time prescribed by this Court pursuant to the representation dated 17.06.2019 given to second respondent.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and learned counsel for respondents. Perused the materials on record.

(3.) Petitioner purchased a vacant house site of an extent of 3700 ft. in Survey No.587/1, Thirumullaivoyal Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District, bearing Plot No.B, Shanthipuram 1st Street, Thirumullaivoyal, by a deed of sale bearing Document No.3690/2011 from one Jebasevan. There is a 20 feet road on the eastern side of petitioner-s property connecting two major roads viz., Madras Tiruvallur Road and Vaishnavi Nagar, Ambattur. Sixth respondent is having a house opposite to petitioner-s vacant plot. Sixth respondent, who is the Ex~Chairman of Avadi Municipality and a political person, insisted the petitioner to sell his property, which was refused by him. In order to cause inconvenience to petitioner and public, sixth respondent constructed a Pillaiyar temple in the middle of 20 feet road. Petitioner and others sent several representations to authorities to remove the temple. Since no action was taken, petitioner filed W.P.No.32690 of 2018 before this Court. Under order dated 07.02.2019, this Court observed that it is open to second respondent, who is the competent authority, to take appropriate action with regard to the construction of the temple without any permission. Thereafter, based on the petitioner-s representation dated 17.06.2019, second respondent has directed fifth respondent to take action to remove the Pillaiyar temple, who, in turn, directed the Surveyor to submit a report. The Surveyor submitted a report informing that the Pillaiyar temple was constructed in the middle of the 20 feet road causing disturbance to public. Based on such report, fifth respondent had taken all steps to remove the pillaiyar temple, but, the sixth respondent, using his power, stopped the same. The further representation of the petitioner has also not yielded any fruitful result. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.