Disposed

R. Muthukumaran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC2 Jul 2015WP(MD)/10981/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to remove encroachments on a cart track used for agricultural access. The Madurai Bench disposed of the petition, directing the Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunities to interested parties within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders within six weeks after affording opportunity to the petitioner and interested parties.

R. Muthukumaran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.10981 of 2015

... Petitioner

R.Muthukumaran

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Thanjavur. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to comply with the orders of the 1^st respondent made in Na.Ka.4998/09/A2 dated 1.3.2011.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to comply with the orders of the 1^st respondent made in Na.Ka.4998/09/A2 dated 1.3.2011.

¶15

2.The petitioner states that adjacent to his land in S.No.110/1, Kandithampattu Village, Thanjavur District, there is a Cart Track and the same is used for transporting agricultural produces in the petitioner's land for the past 35 years. It is the only way for ingress and egress into the petitioner's land. While so, on 20.04.2009, one Maruthaiyan along with two others, with ulterior motive, encroached the cart track with thorn bushes. The petitioner agitated the issue before the first respondent and the first respondent conducted enquiry and ordered the second respondent to remove the encroachments vide proceedings dated 21.01.2010. An appeal filed by the rival party was also ended in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent once again ordered for removal, by order dated 01.03.2011. By yet another proceedings dated 19.12.2013, the first respondent ordered the second respondent to remove the encroachment. But till now there is no fruitful result. Because of encroachment, the petitioner is facing innumerable difficulties in getting access to his land and he has to travel 2 kms extra every time. Hence this writ petition.

¶16

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to pass https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appropriate orders in the light of the communication of the first respondent dated 01.03.2011, after affording opportunity to the

¶18

¶19

petitioner as well as the interested parties if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur.

¶25

2.The Tahsildar, Thanjavur.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.K.Govindarajan,Advocate SR.No.35640 +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.35467

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.10981 of 2015 02.07.2015

¶28

¶29

PA/IV/14.07.2015/2P/5C

¶30

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

R. Muthukumaran, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Muthukumaran, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.Karthik Sankar, Vs the Commissioner

Jebarson, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

G.Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

R.Shajahan Vs the District Collector

G.Saroja Vs the Director

Xavier Sundaram Vs the District Registrar