IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:2.3.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.4734 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 K.Punithavathi ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner, Panruti Municipality, Panruti, Cuddalore District. 2.Duraikannu. 3.Lakshmi. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action for the removal of illegal construction carried out by the respondents 2 and 3 in Survey No.24, Panruti Taluk, bearing door No.78/33B, Chennai Salai, Panruti-607 106 in pursuant of the notices issued by it. For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ganesh For first Respondent :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate, for R1. O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take appropriate action for the removal of illegal construction carried out by the respondents 2 and 3 in Survey No.24, Panruti Taluk, bearing door No.78/33B, Chennai Salai, Panruti-607 106 in pursuant of the notices issued by it. 2. Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Notice to the respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with in view of the order that is to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be passed in this writ petition. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. Petitioner claims to be a lessee of mosque property. According to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 are illegally encroached the property and have put up construction. Earlier, the same petitioner filed W.P.No.7470 of 2010 through her earlier counsel Sri R.N.Amarnath for a direction to consider the representation dated 10.3.2010 and this court passed the following order:- "4. Since the representation dated 10.3.2010 has not been properly sent to the first respondent, the petitioner, if aggrieved is permitted to make a fresh representation along with a copy of this order within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the authority shall consider and dispose off the same on merits and in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that no action should be contemplated against the respondents 2 and 3 without giving them opportunity or putting them on notices, if any action is contemplated. The respondents 2 and 3 should not be unnecessarily harassed without any just or reasonable cause and action if any should be taken only if there is a clear violation of any provision of law. Writ Petition is disposed off as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." The said representation dated 10.3.2010 was considered. It appears that an order dated 8.9.2010 has been passed whereby the Commissioner of Panruti Municipality came to the conclusion that the property belongs to the Dharga and the building permission has been rejected. 4. The present writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to take action for removal of illegal construction carried out by the respondents 2 and 3 in Survey No.24, Panruti Taluk, door No.78/33B, Chennai Salai, Panruti. 5. In the light of the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1860/2010/F1 dated 8.9.2010, whereby it has been clearly held that the property belongs to the Dharga, petitioner would have no right to seek a relief sought for in the present writ petition. If the petitioner has any documents to prove that she has any right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ she is at liberty to approach competent Civil Court. The Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To The Commissioner, Panruti Municipality, Panruti, Cuddalore District. + 1 cc to Mr.S. Ganesh, Advocate SR.14858 W.P.No.4734 of 2011 RSM(CO) EU 10.3.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/