Disposed

Yowan v. the District Collector

Madras HC15 Jul 2015WP(MD)/3729/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding encroachment on government land within two months, on merits and with proper notice, without delving into the merits of the claim immediately.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass an order on the representation dated 23.01.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within two months, after giving notice to all interested part

Yowan Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD).No.3729 of 2015

¶7

1.Yowan 2.A.Johanson 3.J.Theres Mary 4.J.Esther Mary 5.A.Arul Rajesh 6.M.Sharmila Mary 7.R.Mohan 8.M.Pushba 9.J.Maria Bhaskar 10.T.Amirtharaj 11.J.Solomon 12.S.Lenus Sarkuna Raj 13.S.Anand Raj 14.D.Thanga Durai 15.M.Thanishlas Nadar 16.M.Poopal 17.M.Valan 18.R.A.Xavier

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

¶10

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

¶13

4.Arul Prakasam ... Respondents

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents nos. 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in Survey No.65/3G and S.No.53/12 classified as pathway sokkankudiyiruppu Post, Kommadikottai Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District by considering petitioner's representation dated 23.1.2015.

¶15

For petitioners : Mr.C.Venkateshkumar For R.1 to 3 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Govt.Advocate For R.4 ; Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in Survey No.65/3G and S.No.53/12 classified as pathway Sokkankudiyiruppu post, Kommadikottai Village, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2015. Making such prayer, he has made a representation to the official respondents. Since the said representation went unheard of, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra.

¶20

2.. By consent, this Writ Petition itself is taken up for final

¶21

disposal.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the official respondents, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶23

On notice, the learned Govt.Advocate appearing for the official respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶24

The fourth respondent was also put on notice.

¶25

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.01.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner, the private respondents herein as well as any of the interested parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to enclose a copy of this order along with a copy of the representation already sent to the respondents, for proper follow up.

¶26

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶27

sd/- Assistant Registrar, /True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

ssm

¶30

To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶31

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

¶32

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶33

¶34

Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶35

3.The Tahsildar,

¶36

Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.Ajmal Associates Advocate in Sr.No.38980

¶38

+1cc to Mr.Ananth c. Rajesh Advocate in Sr.No.39155

¶39

+1cc to Special Government Pleader Advocate in Sr.No.39553

¶40

W.P(MD).No.3729 of 2015 Dated:15.07.2015

¶41

sk/28.07.2015/3p/7c

¶42

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

Yowan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yowan 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

Ahamadha Vs the Tahsildar

M/S Vasantham Agencies, Vs the Chief General Manager

M.Rajalakshmi Vs the Sub Registrar

King Universe Matriculation Vs the Registrar

Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector

R. Aayirakkal, Vs the Revenue Divisional