Disposed

Tmt.M.Aravalli v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Jul 2015WP/22817/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of notices under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, no adjudication was made, and the Collector was directed to consider the pending appeal. An interim order sought to maintain the status quo for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Collector directed to consider pending appeal; status quo maintained for two weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Tmt.M.Aravalli Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.07.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶7

W.P No.22817 of 2015
M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
M. Aravalli .. Petitioner
Vs.
1 The District Collector
Thiruvallur District
Thiruvallur
2 The Tahsildar
Madhavaram Taluk
Thiruvallur District. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relevant to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 1.7.2015 and consequential notice issued under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 20.07.2015 issued by the second respondent in the name of the petitioner's husband and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary against the natural justice and thereby, direct the second respondent to grant patta in respect of residential property situated in S.No.1, Plot No.31-A, Kurinchi Nagar, Puththagaram Village, Madhavaram Taluk, Thiruvallur District to an extent of 600 sq.ft. of land in the name of petitioner herein immediately.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan

¶10

For respondents : Mr. N.Sakthivel, Government Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶14

Mr.N.Sakthivel, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶15

The petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the notices dated 1st July, 2015 and 20th July, 2015 issued by the second respondent under Sections 7 and 6 respectively of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short "the Act").

¶16

It is beyond cavil that before issuance of notices under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by notice dated 1st July, 2015 issued under Section 7 of the Act. It is not clear as to whether representation, pursuant to the said notice, was made by the petitioner. It is further brought to our notice that after the notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued, the petitioner has preferred appeal under Section 10 of the Act on 22nd July, 2015 and the same is pending consideration before the first respondent.

¶17

Given the fact situation, as afore-stated, no adjudication is required at this stage. However, the first respondent is directed to consider the pending appeal within the statutory period. In the meantime, if application seeking interim relief is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of two weeks from today. It is made clear that for a period of two weeks, status-quo as obtained today in respect of the property in question, shall be maintained.

¶18

The petitioner has further sought a direction to the second respondent to consider their case for grant of patta in respect of her residential property. According to the petitioner, the land in question are Lake Poramboke and as such, the State authorities are competent to consider her request for grant of patta as per G.O. Ms.No.854, Revenue Department dated 30.12.2006.

¶19

While considering the said issue, the authorities are at liberty to examine the fact as to whether the land in question is on the water channel, wherein patta may not be granted.

¶20

At this stage, we do not wish to make any observation as the petitioner has not taken any steps earlier for grant of patta. However, if representation in this regard is pending consideration, the same may be considered independent of other proceedings and appropriate decision can be taken in accordance with the statutory provisions, as afore-stated.

¶21

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

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above
directions and observations. Costs made easy. Connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur
2. The Tahsildar,
Madhavaram Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
+1cc to Government pleader sr.38617
+1cc to Mr.M.V.Muralidaran, Advocate sr.38524
W.P No.22817 of 2015
vsn[co]
srg 06.08.2015

¶23

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

Tmt.M.Aravalli v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.M.Aravalli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Manahavala Perumal Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Manahavala Perumal Vs State of Tamilnadu

Principal Vs Veerappan

M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Vs Government of Tamilnadu

V.Ravichandran Vs The District Collector

Mrs. Padmavathi, Vs The Commissioner