S ANBAZHAGAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment in S.No.52, Panikkan Kuppam Village Panchayat, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District or any other appropriate writ or this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE case set out by the petitioner in the affidavit is that Panikkan Kuppam Panchayat has three wards. THE Village Panchayat is vested with the roads within the panchayat limits, which are being maintained by it. THE road connecting Panikkan Kuppam with the Kumbakonam road vested with the Village Panchayat, which is maintained by the fourth respondent. As per the revenue records, the road is measuring R.S.No.52 and it is classified as road poramboke. On the east of the road about 30,000 Sq. feet in S.No.75/2 is owned by the fifth respondent. THE fifth respondent, without applying and obtaining sanction from the fourth respondent, constructed permanent structures on about 5500 Sq. feet. Though the fifth respondent cannot put up super structures without obtaining permission from the Village Panchayat, with the constructions referred to above, the fifth respondent has encroached on the public road, which is vested with the panchayat. He is putting up a compound wall in S.No.52 thereby encroaching a sizable portion of the road. THE case of the petitioner is that Section 131(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibits erecting structures on the roads.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that a representation was made to the respondents 1 to 4 on 22.07.2010. THE fourth respondent, in response to the representation, stated that on 29.07.2010, he has also filed a petition before the first respondent stating that he cannot remove the encroachment and it could be done only through the first respondent. THE case of the petitioner is that in spite of the representation made by the petitioner pointing out the encroachment and also the petition by the fourth respondent, till date, the official respondents have failed to perform their statutory duty, which has forced the petitioner to approach this Court for necessary directions in this regard.