Dismissed

M/s.Milka Industries (P) Ltd. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Jul 2015WP/21809/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed to restrain dispossession and demolition of land pending a statutory appeal. The court held the petition non-maintainable as it was filed prematurely without awaiting the appellate authority's decision, labeling such conduct an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Status quo in respect of the property maintained for one week; writ petition dismissed.

M/s.Milka Industries (P) Ltd. Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 21/7/2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P. No.21809 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P. No.1 of 2015

¶9

M/s. Milka Industries (P) Ltd

¶10

rep. By its Managing Director No.37 Old Mahabalipuram Road Kazhipattur Village Kancheepuram District 603 103. ... Petitioner Vs

¶11

The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.

¶13

The Tahsildar Tiruporur Kancheepuram District.

¶14

The Revenue Inspector Kelambakkam Tiruporur Taluk Kancheepuram District. 5. The Village Administrative officer No.15 Muttukadu No.14 Kazhipattur Tiruporur Taluk Kancheepuram District.

¶15

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 05. ... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner of the land situated in S.No.97 Kazhpattur Village, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and demolishing any structure therein, pending disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the sixth respondent on 20/7/2015 against the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.31923/2008/A1 dated 7/7/2015.

¶18

For petitioner ... Mr.S.R.Rajagopal for Mr.K.Venkatasubramaniam

¶19

For respondents ... Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram Special Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶21

Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶22

Impugning the order dated 7^th July, 2015, passed by the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act (for short “the Act”), the petitioner has come up with this petition, seeking a direction to forbear the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner of the land situated in S.No.97 Kazhpattur Village, Tiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and demolishing any structure therein, pending disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the sixth respondent on 20/7/2015 against the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.31923/2008/A1 dated 7/7/2015.

¶23

It is worthwhile to mention that the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal against the said order, under provisions of Section 10 of the Act, on 20^th July, 2015, before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. Without waiting for a reasonable time, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with the instant writ petition on the very same day i.e., on 20^th July, 2015.

¶24

Now, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition, seeking a mandamus which is normally issued against an authority for non-action or inaction or against wrong action. Certainly, this is not a case where issue of non-action, wrong action or inaction has arisen, as, the Appellate Authority has not been given an opportunity to take action, within the reasonable time. Thus, this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus is not maintainable, at this stage.

¶25

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

¶26

We deprecate this practice of rushing to the writ Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without waiting for a decision within the prescribed statutory period. This practice is tantamount to abuse of judicial process.

¶27

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and situation, status-quo, in respect of the property in question, as obtained today, shall be maintained for a period of one week from today. In the meantime, the petitioner may seek appropriate order in the pending appeal. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
mvs/cad.
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Revenue Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruporur
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Revenue Inspector
Kelambakkam
Tiruporur Taluk
Kancheepuram District.

¶29

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

¶30

The Village Administrative officer

¶31

No.15 Muttukadu No.14 Kazhipattur Tiruporur Taluk Kancheepuram District.

¶32

The Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam Chepauk Chennai 05.

¶33

1 cc to Government Pleader.Sr.No.37040 1 cc to Mr.K.Venkatasubramanian, Advocate Sr.No.36738

¶34

W.P. No.21809 of 2015
tej(co)
pmk.22.7.2015

¶35

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

M/s.Milka Industries (P) Ltd. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Milka Industries (P) Ltd. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs P. Thangaraj

C.Sridharan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

V.Kannan Vs Presiding Officer

P.v.Rajan, Vs Housing and Urban Development

M/S.Prasanth Fertility Vs the Chennai Metropolitan

E.Madhesh Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer