1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD) No.10913 of 2011 P.Parameswari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.S.Arumugam 3.K.Kalimuthu ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to cause removal of the encroachment or blocking the petitioner's access to her land in Sr.No.212/2, 212/1A1 J and 212/1A1 I in Vaiampatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli from the Vaiampatti Koonnaiyur Highways Road. For petitioner .. Mr.B.Parasanna Vinoth for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For 1st respondent .. Mr.V.Pandi, Government Advocate ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to the first respondent to remove the encroachment or blocking the petitioner's access to her land in S.Nos.212/2, 212/1A1 J and 212/1A1 I in Vaiampatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli, from the Vaiampatti - Koonnaiyur Highways Road. 2.By mutual consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the first respondent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3.Though the petitioner has come forward with a larger prayer, now it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.10.2010, within a time frame. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the encroachment made by the second and third respondents on the pathway leading to the Highways Road, the petitioner has approached the first respondent by giving a representation dated 22.10.2010. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 submitted that till date the said representation is not considered and when the petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act, it was stated by the first respondent that the actions are being taken to remove the encroachment and as the land surveyors were on strike, there is a delay in considering the matter. Therefore, it is submitted that inspite of such reply given by the respondents as early as on 11.03.2011, no further steps have been taken and as such the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the matter is taken up at the admission stage itself and without serving notice to the respondents 2 & 3, in view of the limited prayer now made, this Court is of the view that the interest of the respondents 2 & 3 would be protected by giving a direction to the first respondent to give opportunity for them to make their objections, if any or representations before the disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 6.It is seen that the petitioner has preferred a representation, dated 22.10.2010, before the first respondent seeking the relief of removal of encroachment said to have been done by the second and third respondents, but the fact remains that till date no effective action has been taken. The petitioner has sought for the relief of getting an information, as per the Right to Information Act and as per the reply dated 11.03.2011, it is stated that steps are being taken by the authorities concerned and there is a delay, in view of the strike of land surveyors. Even after the said reply, there is no further progress. Therefore, without going into the merits of the representation, we are constrained to direct the first respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.10.2010, by affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the respondents 2 & 3 by intimating the date of hearing to the petitioner and to the respondents 2 & 3 and after affording reasonable opportunity to the said parties, to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. 7.Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ gcg SUB ASST REGISTRAR To: The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Manapparai, Tiruchirappalli District. 1CC TO MR. G.R. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 35360: 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 35176: DM:2011:NOVEMBER:02:: Order in W.P.(MD)No.10913 of 2011 2P:4C:: 11.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/