Disposed

R.Suresh v. the Commissioner

Madras HC27 Jun 2016WP/10922/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 alleging encroachment on public temple and poramboke land, the Court directed the Collector to survey the area and the Commissioner and Collector to act on enclosed found within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to survey the area within one month and the Commissioner/Collector to take action on any encroachment found within two months thereafter.

R.Suresh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 27.06.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

and The Honourable Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.No.10922 of 2013

¶7

R.Suresh ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Administration Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034.
2. The District Collector,
Namakkal District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Namakkal Taluk,
Namakkal 637 001.
4. M.Natarajan
5. C.P.S.Duraiyan
6.K.Ramasamy
7.M.Ramasamy ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 20.02.2013 given by the villages in respect of the encroachment on the poramboke land in S.No.268/40, Vettiyagoundenpudur Village, Periyapatti post, Namakkal District and misuse of the public temple and take suitable action on the representation given by the petitioner within a time frame.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner :::Mr.A.V.Arun For Respondents :::Mrs.Rita Chandraskearan

¶11

for R.1 Mr.S.T.S.Murthi Government Pleader for R.2 and R.3 Mr.C.Kulanthaivel for

¶12

R.4 to R.7.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶15

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the private respondents, it appears that there is a dispute about the allegation of encroachment on the pathway and temple area and thus, the third respondent should carry out a survey of the areas to determine the exact locations.

¶16

The needful be done within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

¶17

On scrutiny of the report, if any encroachments are found, depending on where they exist, the first and second respondents would take action in accordance with law within two months thereafter, after notice to all concerned.

¶18

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶20

True Copy

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

ksr

¶23

¶24

1.The Commissioner,Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

¶25

Administration Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶26

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

¶27

The District Collector, Namakkal District.

¶28

3.The Tahsildar, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal 637 001.

¶29

+1 cc to Mr.A.V.Arun Advocate sr.36037

¶30

+1 cc to Mr.C.Kulanthaivel Advocate sr.36273

¶31

+2 cc to the Government Pleader sr.35656 & 36352

¶32

W.P.No.10922 of 2013

¶33

aa14/07/2016

¶34

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

R.Suresh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Suresh v. the Commissioner

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

K.Baskar Vs The General Manager

M.Tamilselvan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Kumaravel Vs The Coastal Aqua Culture

S.Jamal, Vs the Central Government of

V.Sekar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Pugalenthi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu