Disposed

Radha Kandasamy, v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Oct 2014WP/26694/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ seeking direction to remove encroachments on government land by respondents. Court held petition premature, treated notice as representation, and directed reasoned decision within one month. Petition disposed of, Common Petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; directions for reasoned decision within one month given; Common Petition closed.

Radha Kandasamy, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

W.P.No.26694 of 2014

¶7

and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Radha Kandasamy .. Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2.The Thasildar,
Maduravoyal Taluk,
Maduravoyal, Chennai.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
Maduravoyal Taluk,
Maduravoyal, Chennai.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Vanagaram, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police,
T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station,
Maduravoyal, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to protect the Government lands in Survey No.22/1 to the extent of 2 acres 4 cents and Survey No.22/2 to the extent of 2 acres 18 cents in the Noombal Village, Chennai 600 077 by removing the encroachments therein.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mrs.A.Arulmozhi for M/s.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents .. Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader.

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

The petitioner makes a grievance that lands in Survey Nos.22/1 and 22/2 to the extent of 4 acres and 22 cents in total, in Noombal village, which are stated to be classified as Government land in revenue records, are sought to be encroached by some private parties by fencing the land. In this behalf, a legal notice dated 26.09.2014 was addressed to the respondents.

¶14

2.It appears that the petition is premature, as the petitioner has rushed to the Court without giving adequate time to respond to the legal notice. Be that as it may, the notice be treated as representation on part of the petitioner and a reasoned decision be communicated within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, after hearing all parties concerned.

¶15

3.Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 stands closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III) Dated: 16.10.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To 1.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 2.The Thasildar, Maduravoyal Taluk, Maduravoyal, Chennai. 3.The Revenue Inspector, Maduravoyal Taluk, Maduravoyal, Chennai. 4.The Village Administrative Officer, Vanagaram, Chennai. 5.The Inspector of Police, T-4 Maduravoyal Police Station, Maduravoyal, Chennai. + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.48727 + 1 cc to Mr.M. Gnanasekar, Advocate SR.48168 W.P.No.26694 of 2014 TEJ(CO) Eu 17/10/149.10.2014

¶16

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

Radha Kandasamy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Kandasamy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Board of Trustees of the Vs the Madras Steamer Agents Assc

R.Muthukumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

K.R.Ramaswamy alias Traffic Vs The Secretary

R.Sangeetha, W/o.Ramesh, Vs The District Collector

Jitendra R.Patel Vs The Member Secretary

T.Prema, Vs The Collector