Heard both sides.
2.No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 6. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3.According to the Petitioner/Developer, they had completed the construction of the hotel building and the hotel is functioning and that many political parties had unauthorisedly erected flag poles on the platforms and on the road margins in front of their building and the flag poles are posing hindrance to them and their free access to the hotel building at the entrance is causing great difficulties to the general public and the pedestrians. Also that, the individuals belonging to various political parties are creating nuisance under the guise of Flag Hoisting Ceremonies. Therefore, the Petitioner had addressed a detailed Representation, dated 28.09.2017, to the First Respondent/District Collector, Dindigul District requesting him to take appropriate steps to remove the unauthorised flag poles erected on the platforms and on the road margins in front of its building premises at T.S.No.7/4A2, Anna Salai, Kodaikanal Town, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. Further, the Petitioner/Developer had also addressed a similar communication dated 05.10.2017, to the Second Respondent/Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Dindigul District.
4.In this connection, this Court, aptly points out that Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, refers to 'Removal of Encroachments'. It cannot be gainsaid that road margins are usually vested with the Municipality. If a road margin is in occupation of a private person, the Municipality has got jurisdiction and right in Law to order eviction.
5.Undoubtedly, the power to evict encroachment rests with the Municipality and that the encroachers in question can be evicted by following the due procedure mentioned in Chapter IX of the Act, as per decision RAMARAJU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (2) CTC 741 (Madras).
6.Considering the fact that the Petitioner's Representation, dated 28.09.2017 and another Representation, dated 05.10.2017 addressed to the First Respondent/District Collector, Dindigul District and the Second Respondent/Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, are pending as on date without any progression in the subject matter in issue. At this stage, this Court, without dwelling deep into the merits and contents of the Representation, directs the Second Respondent/Commissioner of Kodaikanal Municipality, to remove the encroachment as per Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, by following the procedure contained in Chapter IX of the Act, and also as per the principle laid down in the decision RAMARAJU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER reported in 2005 (2) CTC 741 (Madras), within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.With the above Direction(s) and Observation(s), the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
To:
1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
3.The Tahisldar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways, Kodaikanal Sub Division, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.
5.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
6.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodiakanal.
.