Dismissed

W.Jebakumar, v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Mar 2015WP(MD)/3028/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking removal of alleged encroachments on a public road. Court held that disputed facts regarding encroachment and subsisting rights require evidence in a civil suit where one is already pending.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioners permitted to be impleaded as parties in pending civil suits with direction to the Trial Court to decide within three months.

W.Jebakumar, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S.RAVI W.P.(MD)No.3028 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶3

1.W.Jebakumar 2.E.Subbulakshmi 3.A.Immaqulate 4.Esakkimuthu 5.Vesli Dharmaraj

¶4

...Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶7

2.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Muncipality, Tuticorin. 3.Thangavel 4.Annamini

5.John

6.Sermadurai

7.Perumal

8.Bass

9.Michael

10.Anthoni

11.Vasantha

12.Rajasingh 13.Nithya

¶16

14.Thangam ...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the alleged unlawful encroachments made by the respondents 3 to 14 on the 30 feet public road in Ward – 4, Block – 49A, Town Survey No.5845/11, Vetrivelpuram, Tuticorin Town by considering the petitioners' petition dated 20.12.2013.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.S.K.Kadarkarai

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Spl.G.P.for R1 Mr.Sajibino for R2 Mr.P.Venkatesan for R3 and R4

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(Order of this Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J.)

¶22

The Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove unlawful encroachments made by the respondents 3 to 14 herein on the 30 feet public road in Ward – 4, Block – 49A, Town Survey No.5845/11, Vetrivelpuram, Tuticorin Town by considering the petitioners' petition dated 20.12.2013.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent,

¶24

¶25

and the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 to 14 have made encroachment on the public road and the said encroachment shall be removed by the repsondents 1 and 2.

¶26

3.However, it is submitted on the side of the respondents 3 to 14 that the said respondents are residing in the land in question for more than 20 years and they are paying house tax to the local body and also having voter identity card, etc relating to the said address. It is further submitted that the respondents 3 to 14 filed a suit in O.S.Nos.132, 166 to 168 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin, seeking information not to evict them without following due process of law and the suit were decreed accordingly.

¶27

4.Learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the respondents 3 to 14 could not be evicted since they got interim order from the civil court. The pertinent question to be decided is whether the respondents 3 to 14 have made any encroachment on the public road as alleged by the writ petitioner or whether the said respondents got any subsisting right in the property.

¶28

5.This Court dealing with writ jurisdiction, cannot go into the disputed question of fact as the same has to be established only by adducing proper evidence. As a suit has been filed by the respondents 3 to 14 against the authorities not to evict them except under due process of law, if need be the petitioners herein could implead themselves as parties into the said suits. It is not in dispute that there is interim injunction granted by a civil court, hence, the respondents 1 and 2 should take action against the petitioners only according to law. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are empowered to take action only as per law if there is any encroachement made by the respondents 3 to 14 afer providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 14 and others if any.

¶29

6.On the said facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both sides, we permit the petitioners to implead themselves as parties to the suits pending before the Civil court and if any such petition is filed by the petitioners, the Trial Court should entertain the same and implead them as party and provide reasonable opportunity after considering the submission and evidence by both the parties and decide according to law at an early date preferably within three months.

¶30

7.With the above observation, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(Writs)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶37

2.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Muncipality, Tuticorin.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.S.Kadarkari, Advocate in SR.11877

¶39

+1cc to Mr.S.Ramasamy, Advocate in SR.11461

¶40

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader in SR.12080

¶41

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

¶42

pbk 21/04/2015 ::2p-6c:

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.3028 of 2014 10.03.2015

W.Jebakumar, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

W.Jebakumar, 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

N. Rajendran, S/O. Nataraj, Vs the District Collector

The District Appropriate Vs Dr.Ar.Santhini

Neervala Pathukappu Matrum Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

L.Jagannathan, Vs the District Collector

K. Vairam, Vs the District Collector

V.Parvathy Velpandian Vs the District Collector