S.Ramesh vs The Deputy Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 21669 Mad

                                                           1

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 28.10.2021

                                                         Coram

                                   The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                        and
                            The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                               W.A.No.2703 of 2021


                     S.Ramesh                                                   ..Appellant
                                                          Vs

                     1.The Deputy Director,
                       Urban Planning Officer,
                       Office of the Deputy Director
                           Urban Planning, Ranipettai District.

                     2.The District Registrar,
                       Office of the District Registrar,
                       Arakkonam, Ranipettai District.

                     3.The Block Development Officer,
                       Office of the Block Development Officer,
                       Arakkonam, Ranipettai District.

                     4.R.Dhuraikannu
                     5.Andal                                               ..Respondents


                               Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against

                     the order dated 04.06.2021 made in W.P.No.11446 of 2021.


                                    For Appellant   ..     Ms.R.Poornima




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                  2


                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by

learned single Judge dated 04 June 2021 on W.P.No.11446 of 2021,

whereby the writ petition is dismissed.

2. Grievance of the appellant was that the piece of land which

was given by someone for public road has been obstructed by

respondents 4 and 5 and that grievance be considered by the State

authorities on the representation.

3. Learned single Judge has been pleased not to exercise

discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which in

our view, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of

record, warranting any interference in an intra-court appeal.

4. While dismissing this appeal, we clarify that we have not

gone into merits of the grievance voiced by the present

appellant/original petitioner and in the event, appropriate

proceedings are taken by the writ petitioner, the same may be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

decided without being influenced by the decision of learned single

Judge or this order.

5. This writ appeal is dismissed with above clarification. No

costs.

                                                                (P.U.J.,)    (S.S.K.J.,)
                                                                     28.10.2021
                     Index:Yes/No
                     mmi/6


                     To

                     1.The Deputy Director,
                       Urban Planning Officer,
                       Office of the Deputy Director

Urban Planning, Ranipettai District.

2.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Arakkonam, Ranipettai District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Arakkonam, Ranipettai District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

mmi

W.A.No.2703 of 2021

28.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/