Partly allowed

K.Nagarajan v. the Collector

Madras HC12 Aug 2011WP/5467/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Tahsildar to dispose of a representation regarding encroachments on a common pathway after giving notice to the petitioner and the alleged encroacher, reserving an issue for the civil forum if required.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of the representation on merits with notice to the petitioner and alleged encroacher within twelve weeks.

K.Nagarajan Vs the Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.8.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

Writ Petition No.5467 of 2011

¶6

K.NAGARAJAN [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE COLLECTOR
SALEM DISTRICT
SALEM
2 THE TAHSILDAR
TAHSILDAR OFFICE
SALEM [ RESPONDENTS ]
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing
respondents 1 and 2 to remove encroachments and obstruction made in
common pathway situated at ward K, block 18, in T.S.No.298, 299 and
301 in Salem Taluk and Salem City by considering the representation
of this petitioner dated 24.12.2010 and 12.1.2011.

¶7

For petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

¶8

For respondents : Mr.N.Visakamurthy

¶9

Government Advocate

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Mr.N.Visakamurthy, the learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents.

¶12

At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 24.12.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

¶13

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

¶14

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appearing on either side, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 24.12.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

¶15

petitioner, as well as to Sadaya Gounder, s/o.Krishna Gounder, Periyeri Village, Peramanur, Salem-7, who is said to have caused some obstructions on the common pathway in question, and to the other persons concerned, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if it is found that the matter involves a civil dispute, the second respondent may direct the parties concerned to approach the appropriate civil forum to get the necessary reliefs, in the manner known to law. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 24.12.2010, to the second respondent, along with a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.

¶17

Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
lan
To:
1 THE COLLECTOR
SALEM DISTRICT
SALEM
2 THE TAHSILDAR
TAHSILDAR OFFICE
SALEM
1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.50147
1 CC to Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate, S.R.No.50077
Writ Petition No.5467 of 2011
KJI(CO)
SRA(9/9/2011)

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Nagarajan v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nagarajan v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Vinay Auto Copier Machine Vs Mr Kannan Irs

A.M.Amutha Ganesh Vs Dr.v.Vijaya Kumar

Kalaiarasai Vs Dr.Rajendran

R.v.M.Sumanth Rao Vs the District Collector

T.Dhivya Vs the Branch Manager

K R Kamala Vs D Sabitha IAS