P. DINESH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the vacant house site comprised in T.S. No. 35/1, Old S. No. 344/1, 258/2D Ward B, Block 4, having an extent of 1170 sq.ft., situated at Door No. 9, Gandhi Road, Arakonnam Tiruttani Road and he had purchased the property under a deed of sale dated 23.03.2015. According to the petitioner, number of encroachments have been made over the road margin, thereby the access to the highway has been completely taken away. Thereafter, a representation has been submitted by the petitioner on 19.09.2015 and a reminder dated 31.10.2015 was also submitted to the respondents, but, the same has not been considered by them. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, having admitted that the encroachment was made by the respondents 3 to 6 over the battai Poromboke situated adjacent to the State highway connecting Arakkonam - Tiruttani Road, failed to advert to any of the statutory provisions of the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, while passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2017. Hence the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, in a number of cases, had specifically directed that the encroachments adjoining the road side and road poramboke, cannot be permitted irrespective of the period of encroachment and further pleaded to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2017.