Disposed

M.Karpagam, W/O S.R. Muthu, v. the Airport Director

Madras HC14 Mar 2014WP(MD)/11899/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice. While upholding AAI's statutory powers, the Court directed a survey by the Tahsildar to verify encroachment. If encroachment exists, removal is mandatory; otherwise, the matter closes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Tahsildar to conduct a survey to verify encroachment within four weeks.

M.Karpagam, W/O S.R. Muthu, Vs the Airport Director — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2014 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.11899 of 2013

M.Karpagam

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Airport Director, (Eviction Officer) Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai.

¶9

2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. ...Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing proceedings No. AA1/MDU/LM-9/6280 dated 16.07.2013 passed by the 1st Respondent, to quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to measure the property of the petitioner and to fix the four boundaries on the basis of the petitioner's letter dated 11.07.2013.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Babu Rajendran For 1^st Respondent : Mr.C.Godwin For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian,

¶13

Special Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.)

¶16

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a notice issued by the first respondent for the removal of encroachment into a land allegedly belonging to the Airports Authority of India .

¶17

2.Heard Mr.Babu Rajendran, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Godwin , learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶18

3.The dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent lies in a very narrow campus. According to the first respondent, the petitioner encroached into a land of the extent of approximately 10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sq.mts in Survey No.455, belonging to the first respondent authority. It appears that the first respondent approached the revenue department but

¶19

¶20

the revenue department did not take any action. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28(C) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the first respondent was compelled to initiate proceedings.

¶21

4.But the positive contention of the petitioner is that she has put up a construction on her own land and that if the revenue finds any portion of her property to be an encroachment into the land belonging to the first respondent, the petitioner is prepared to demolish the same and remove it. In order to demonstrate her bona fide, the petitioner has also made an application to the Tahsildar, on 11.07.2013. She has also paid necessary fees, as seen from the challan, dated 08.07.2013.

¶22

5.There is certainly no doubt about the fact that the first respondent is conferred powers under a statute for removal of encroachment. But at the same time, when the petitioner herself is prepared to remove any encroachment, if found out by the revenue department, we are of the view that it is fair to test the bona fides of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of to the following effect.

¶23

“i)The third respondent shall have a survey of the land conducted through Taluk Surveyor/Deputy Taluk Surveyor with due reference to the F.M.B sketch as well as other revenue records and file a report with the second respondent Collector as to whether there was any encroachment by the petitioner into Survey No.455, belonging to the first respondent.

¶24

ii)A copy of the report shall also be given to the petitioner as well as to the respondents.

¶25

iii)The measurement of the property by the Taluk Surveyor/Deputy Taluk Surveyor shall take place in the presence of the petitioner as well as an Officer nominated by the first respondent. If the report of the Tahsildar is to the effect that there is an encroachment, the petitioner shall remove such encroachment. If the report is in favour of the petitioner, the matter shall be closed on that.

¶26

iv)The Tahsildar, shall carry out the above exercise and file a report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

v)The Tahsildar, shall also ensure that notices are sent sufficiently in advance to the petitioner and the first respondent before the inspection is carried out. If the petitioner fails to remove the encroachment, after the Tahsildar records his finding to that effect, the Collector himself shall make arrangements to remove the encroachment”.

¶28

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn)

¶31

/True copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

To 1.The Airport Director, (Eviction Officer) Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. +1CC to M/s.c.Godwin, Advocate in SR.No.16165 +1CC to M/s.Babu Rajendran, Advocate in SR.No.16184 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader in SR.No.16414

¶36

Writ Petition (MD) No.11899 of 2013 14.03.2014

¶37

sms PBK 26/03/2014 3P/7C

¶38

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

M.Karpagam, W/O S.R. Muthu, v. the Airport Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karpagam, W/O S.R. Muthu, v. the Airport Director

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

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs P.Helen Cecil

The Principal Secretary to Vs a. Chakravarthy

The Manager Vs Chandrakumar

The Superintendent of Post Vs R.Sheela Rajarajan

N.K.Subbarayalu, Vs the Chairman and Managing

C. Aruna Devi Vs the District Collector