Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jeyachandra Devar Vs. The District Collector, Madurai District and others

Jeyachandra Devar vs The District Collector, Madurai District and others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 29, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1190992

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P.(MD)No. 1789 of 2015
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jeyachandra Devar

Respondent

The District Collector, Madurai District and others

Excerpt

(prayer: the writ petition is filed under article 226 of constitution of india, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to use the vacant place situated in front of the thirumangalam bus-stand for bus passengers, general public and free flow of traffic instead of constructing shopping complex at there.)s.s. sundar, j. 1. this writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2, to use the vacant place situated in front of the thirumangalam bus-stand for bus passengers, general public and free flow of traffic, instead of constructing shopping complex at there. 2. we have already disposed of another writ petition in w.p.(md)no.9096 of 2015 with directions. the admitted fact is that new shops 18 in numbers are proposed to be constructed in the same place wherein 10 shops were in existence. since the building was in a dilapidated condition, thirumangalam municipality has passed a resolution, to demolish the existing building and to construct all the new shops, 18 in numbers, in the same place, to augment its income. we are not inclined to interfere with the policy decision of the localbody, especially, when the petitioner is not pointed out any valid reasons for preventing the construction of new shops to serve any public interest. in that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. however, there is no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to use the vacant place situated in front of the Thirumangalam Bus-Stand for bus passengers, general public and free flow of traffic instead of constructing shopping complex at there.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2, to use the vacant place situated in front of the Thirumangalam Bus-stand for bus passengers, general public and free flow of traffic, instead of constructing shopping complex at there.

2. We have already disposed of another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.9096 of 2015 with directions. The admitted fact is that new shops 18 in numbers are proposed to be constructed in the same place wherein 10 shops were in existence. Since the building was in a dilapidated condition, Thirumangalam Municipality has passed a Resolution, to demolish the existing building and to construct all the new shops, 18 in numbers, in the same place, to augment its income. We are not inclined to interfere with the policy decision of the localbody, especially, when the petitioner is not pointed out any valid reasons for preventing the construction of new shops to serve any public interest. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial