Disposed

S. Santha, v. the Chief Executive Engineer

Madras HC21 Jan 2013WP(MD)/1063/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of writ petition filed to quash eviction orders. Found orders passed without notice violated natural justice. Directed respondent to afford opportunity for objections and pass final order within 12 weeks, staying coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to afford opportunity to petitioners to submit objections and pass final order within 12 weeks, prohibiting coercive steps until then.

S. Santha, Vs the Chief Executive Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA

¶3

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS W.P.(MD)No.1063 of 2013

¶4

1.S.Santha

¶5

2.G.Rajeswari .. Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Chief Executive Engineer,

¶8

Office of Public Works Department,

¶9

Madurai-2.

¶10

2.The Assistant Engineer,

¶11

PWD/Water Resource Organization,

¶12

Nilaiyur, Thirupparankundram

¶13

Madurai District.

¶14

3.The District Collector,

¶15

Madurai District, Madurai-20.

¶16

4.The Tahsildhar, Madurai South, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to three impugned orders issued by the 2^nd respondent herein the Assistant Engineer/PWD, Nilaiyur Section, Nilaiyur, Madurai District dated 18.12.2012 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the possession of the petitioners.

¶18

For petitioner : Mr.R.Selvaraj

¶19

For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Govt. Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, and P.DEVADASS.JJ., )

¶22

By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

2.The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of calling for the records relating to three impugned orders issued by the 2^nd respondent herein the Assistant Engineer/PWD, Nilaiyur Section, Nilaiyur, Madurai District dated 18.12.2012 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the possession of the petitioners.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, directing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners to vacate from the alleged encroached places i.e a dwelling house and the well along with agricultural land comprised in the same survey Number. It is contended that the impugned orders have been passed

¶25

¶26

without affording any opportunity and without serving any notice to the petitioners. As such, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶27

4.Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that thee is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the second respondent. It is for the petitioners to give their objections if any.

¶28

5.We have considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the impugned orders.

¶29

6.A perusal of the impugned orders dated 18.12.2012, passed by the second respondent, disclose that the second respondent has not issued any notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. It is seen that the petitioners have been called upon to vacate the alleged encroached places straight away. Though it is worded as the said proceedings were issued only as a notice, the time limit given by them to vacate from the alleged encroachment, within a period of 21 days, squarely shows that the same would amount to an order of eviction.

¶30

7.In view of the same, we are constrained to direct the second respondent herein to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections and after considering the objections of the petitioners and after affording an opportunity to them, he shall pass final order. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and until such time, the second respondent shall not take any coercive steps to vacate the petitioners.

¶31

8.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected MP.No.2 of 2013 is closed. No costs.

SD/-

Deputy Registrar(W)

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Chief Executive Engineer,Office of Public Works Department, Madurai-2.

¶38

2.The Assistant Engineer, PWD/Water Resource Organization, Nilaiyur, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District.

¶39

3.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai-20.

¶40

4.The Tahsildhar,Madurai South, Madurai.

¶41

+1 CC to Mr.R.Selvaraj, Advocate, SR.No.2337

¶42

+1 CC to the special Government Pleader, SR.No.2625

¶43

¶44

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1063 of 2013 21.01.2013

¶45

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

¶46

TR : 07.02.2013 : 2p/7c

S. Santha, v. the Chief Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Santha, v. the Chief Executive Engineer

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

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs Subbalakshmi Lakshmipathy

Ramaraj Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M. Abraham, Vs the District Collector

M. Sasi, Vs the District Collector

Seetharaman, Vs the District Collector

Sagunthala, Vs the District Collector