Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2997 (MAD)

S. Sathish Kumar v. District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy

2014-09-01

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property comprised in S.Nos.490/A2, A13 D92 situated at Thaappai Panchayat, Pullambadi sub-Registration District, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District. 2. In order to drain the drainage water from his house, the petitioner made a representation to the Panchayat to connect the same to the drainage channel and that was not considered. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, in which, this Court, by order dated 20.07.2007, directed the second respondent herein to consider the said representation. Accordingly, the second respondent considered the representation and passed an order by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.AA2/4786/2004, dated 21.10.2005. In the said order, the Block Development Officer directed the Panchayat to cut across the road measuring 15 feet breadth and put up a pipeline so as to connect the drainage of the house of the petitioner to the other side of the road, where there is a channel. The Block Development Officer further directed that the said construction should be made by the Panchayat and if the Panchayat failed to do the same before 15.11.2005, the petitioner himself could do the same. Accordingly, the Panchayat failed to do the same. Subsequently, the petitioner put up a pipeline across the road and connected the drainage of his house into the common drainage channel in the other side of the road. On the apprehension that the Panchayat President may remove that, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and I have also perused the records carefully. 4. The writ petition is pending from 2007. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate has produced a proceedings of the District Collector, Trichy District in Na.Ka.No.A9/372/2007, dated 13.01.2009. 5. From that order, it is seen that one Raja Chidambaram, who is the President of the Panchayat wanted to go ahead with the construction of the drainage channel, which is in front of the petitioner's house. In this regard, the Panchayat President has filed a writ petition in W.P. (md).No.6157 of 2007. In that writ petition, this Court directed the District Collector to consider the said objection and pass a final order. In this regard, the Panchayat President has filed a writ petition in W.P. (md).No.6157 of 2007. In that writ petition, this Court directed the District Collector to consider the said objection and pass a final order. Accordingly, the District Collector made inspection of the spot along with officials and an enquiry was conducted, in which the petitioner Mr.Raja Chidambaram and the third respondent/present writ petitioner Mr.Sathish Kumar participated along with their advocates. During the enquiry, the District Collector found that even though a common drainage channel is running in front of all the houses, the act of the petitioner/Sathish Kumar by way of breaking the road across and putting up a pipeline across the road and connecting the same with the drainage channel in front of his house, is very harmful to the residents of the locality. The District Collector further found that draining the water on the channel to be put up just in front of the petitioner's house is very safe. Accordingly, order of the Block Development Officer, which is under challenge in this writ petition is cancelled by the District Collector. As against the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(md).No.700 of 2009 and that writ petition was dismissed as not pressed by order dated 28.02.2014. Thus, in view of the order passed by the District Collector and the order passed by this Court, nothing survives in this writ petition. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner is directed to work out his remedy, if he has got any grievance, before the competent Civil Court. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs.