Madras High Court
V.R.Mariappan vs The Project Director on 19 October, 2022
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
V.R.Mariappan .. Appellant
vs
The Project Director,
NHAI, PIU Kancheepuram,
National Highways Authority of India,
No.7/16, Govindarajan Street,
Tambaram West-600 045. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 22.4.2022 passed in W.P.No.1213 of 2022.
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
for M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
For the Respondents : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
___________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22.4.2022
passed in W.P.No.1213 of 2022, wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5,
the learned Single Judge has specifically observed as under:
“5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the petitioners properties were demolished
only after the due process of law. However, petitioner
may approach the competent form for claiming their
grievance.
6. Recording the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, the present writ
petitions are closed. In view of the above submissions,
the prayer sought by petitioners in the present writ
petition cannot be granted. However, liberty is granted
to the petitioners, to work out their remedy in the
manner known to law.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
before demolishing the property belonging the appellant, no
opportunity was given to him.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
3. The said statement of learned counsel for the appellant
runs counter to the averment made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit
filed in support of the writ petition, wherein the appellant stated
that “respondent all of a sudden on 18.12.2020 affixed a notice
directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised occupation
under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways Act, 2002”.
Upon receipt of the said notice, the appellant has also given reply
dated 31.12.2021.
4. A perusal of notice dated 18.12.2020 shows that the
appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the land belonging to
the National Highways Department. Since his unauthorised
occupation has caused nuisance, the National Highways Authority of
India has issued notice to the appellant and thereafter, removed the
said unauthorised occupation made by the appellant and others.
Though the appellant claimed that he is patta-holder of the land in
question, no such patta has been produced either before the
learned Single Judge or this Court.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
5. Having considered the case of the appellant and recording
the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that only after
following due process of law the demolition was effected, the
learned Single Judge has closed the writ petition with liberty to the
appellant to approach the competent forum, if he is aggrieved.
6. Since the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the
appellant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law, the
course open to the appellant is only to approach the competent
forum. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the
learned Single Judge.
7. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will
be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.17746 of 2022 is
closed.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.K.K., J.)
19.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
To:
The Project Director,
NHAI, PIU Kancheepuram,
National Highways Authority of India,
No.7/16, Govindarajan Street,
Tambaram West-600 045.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
T.RAJA, ACJ.
AND
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
bbr
W.A.No.2321 of 2022
19.10.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
