Disposed

A.Marimuthu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC4 Jun 2015WP/15625/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct authorities to remove encroachments. The High Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the concerned authority under the existing Government Order instead of issuing a writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to submit fresh representation to relevant authority.

A.Marimuthu, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.No.15625 of 2015

¶7

A.Marimuthu .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kaveripattinam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
5.Govindan
6.Vedi .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action to remove the encroachments in Survey No.124/2 and 301 situate at Karadi Halli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District based on the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 21.1.2015 and the rerpesentation dated 1.4.2015 forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, Govt. Pleader for RR1 to 4

¶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 Government has issued an order in G.O. (Ms.) No.540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2014, for constitution of Redressal Committees to dispose of grievances relating to eviction of encroachments. It appears, the petitioner has made several representations qua the illegal encroachment, but no action has been taken yet. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner can now make a fresh representation to the authority concerned, who, in turn, will pass orders in terms of the aforesaid G.O.

¶14

2.Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Kaveripattinam Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
1 cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran , Advocate Sr.No.26776
1 cc to Government Pleader.Sr.No.26665

¶15

W.P.No.15625 of 2015

¶16

km(co) pmk.16.6.2015

¶17

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

A.Marimuthu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Marimuthu, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Federation of Associations of Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Rajashree Age 42 Years Vs Union of India

M.Sivaramalingam Vs The Commissioner

South Indian Fishermens Welfar Vs The Secretary to Govt.

Raj Kumar, Vs The Secretary

Hutsun Agro Product Limited Vs P.Rajaram