Partly allowed

K.Raji, v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Dec 2016WP/25609/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into petitioner's complaint regarding ex-communication and harassment. Petitioner requested action against respondents for trespassing and imposing a fine via katapanchayat. Issue of compensation was not decided at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to conduct enquiry expeditiously and restrain respondents from conducting katapanchayat against petitioner.

K.Raji, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 25609 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 & 2 of 2012

¶6

K. Raji ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector Vellore District Vellore. 2. The Superintendent of Police Vellore District Vellore. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Thirupattur Vellore District Vellore. 4. The Tahsildar Ambur Taluk Office Ambur Vellore District. 5. The Inspector of Police Ambur Taluk Police Station Ambur Vellore District. 6. Chinnasamy 7. Srinivasan 8. Sivalingan 9. Mani 10. Kuppan .. Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to hold an enquiry under the supervision of first respondent in Nayakanari Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District based on the representation dated 7.7.2012 given by the petitioner with regard to the ex communication order passed by the Katapanchayatars 7^th to 10^th respondents at the instance of 6^th respondent against the petitioner and his family members and to take action against them in accordance with law and also to direct the Katapanchayatars 7^th to 10^th respondents to pay compensation as fixed in the enquiry and pass further orders.

¶9

For Petitioner: Mr. T. Muruganantham

¶10

For Respondent: Mr. S. Navaneethan, Addl.G.P for R1 to R5 No appearance for R6 to R10 O R D E R

¶11

This writ petition has been filed praying to direct the 3^rd respondent to hold an enquiry under the supervision of 1^st respondent in Nayakanari Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, based on the representation dated 7.7.2012 given by the petitioner and to take action against them in accordance with law and also to direct the Katapanchayatars 7^th to 10^th respondents to pay compensation as fixed in the enquiry.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is the owner of the properties situated in Survey No.100/1A, 100/4A, 101/2A, 67/16, 74/2A3, 74/3C, 74/4B and 82/13 in Nayakanari Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District. On 21.02.2012 and 31.05.2012, his brother the 6^th respondent and his family members along with rowdy elements, trespassed into the property of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No.70/2012 and the Principal District Munsif, Ambur granted interim injunction restraining the 6^th respondent and his members from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Inspite of that, the 6^th respondent trespassed and took away 5 ½ tons of mangoes. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the 5^th respondent but no action was taken. The 6^th respondent placed a complaint before the village panchayats, respondents 7 to 10 herein, who conducted katapanchayat and ex-communicated the petitioner and his family members from the village and also imposed a fine of Rs.15,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not permitted to bury his son's body, who died in an accident. Since the petitioner and

¶13

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

¶14

his family is facing immense trouble by the 6^th respondent and the village panchayats respondents 7 to 10, a complaint dated 07.07.2012 was lodged by the petitioner to the respondents 1 to 5. As no action was taken by the police authorities, this writ petition has been filed.

¶15

Learned Special Government Pleader would submit that as stated by the petitioner, if the representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2012 is still pending, the same would be considered, in accordance with law.

¶16

Heard Mr. T. Muruganantham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Navaneethan, Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶17

On 20.12.2012, this Court has passed an interim direction to the 5^th respondent, to restrain the respondents 6 to 10 from conducting any type of kattapanchayat against the petitioner and his family members and not to harass them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the interim direction dated 20.12.2012, if no enquiry is conducted as yet, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents 2 to 4, to conduct an enquiry on the representation dated 07.07.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing an opportunity to the parties concerned.

¶18

The Writ Petition is disposed of, on the above terms. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

avr

¶23

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

¶24

To
1. The District Collector
Vellore District
Vellore.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District
Vellore.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Thirupattur
Vellore District
Vellore.
4. The Tahsildar
Ambur Taluk Office
Ambur
Vellore District.
5. The Inspector of Police
Ambur Taluk Police Station
Ambur
Vellore District.
W.P. No. 25609 of 2012
and
M.P. No. 1 & 2 of 2012
KS(CO)
EU 23.1.17

¶25

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

K.Raji, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Raji, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Mylsamy Vs the Superintending Engineer

S.M.Mani Vs the Executive Engineer

Sakthi Aisvarya Spinning Mill Vs Employees Provident Fund

K.Varadharaja Perumal Vs the Commissioner

S.Saroja Vs Competent Authority

Venugopal, S/O.Late Vs the Joint Commissioner