Disposed

M.PoornaSundari v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Aug 2016WP/27292/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Section 7 notice regarding eviction under the Chennai III Act. The High Court refused to quash the notice, directing the petitioner to reply within 15 days while prohibiting coercive action until proceedings conclude.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to reply to notice within 15 days; restraining respondents from coercive action until proceedings conclude.

M.PoornaSundari Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:05.08.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.27292 of 2016
and WMP.No.23493 of 2016

¶7

M.PoornaSundari ...Petitioner
Vs.
1 The District Collector
Erode District
Erode
2 The Revenue Tasildhar
Office of the Tashildhar
Panneerselvampark
Erode District
Erode
3 The Land Revenue Inspector
Erode West Circle
Erode Taluk and District
4 P.Saravanan ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to impugned order dated 22.07.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.

¶9

(Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.)

¶10

Heard Mr.D.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.A.Sri Jeyanthi, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶11

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

¶12

Challenging the order dated 22.07.2016 issued by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is before this court, wherein, the petitioner was called upon to explain why she should not be evicted from the land mentioned in the said notice.

¶13

The impugned notice dated 22.07.2016 is a Section 7 Notice issued under Chennai III Act, 1905 (hereinafter called as “Act”) wherein, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why she should not be evicted from the land mentioned in the said notice and why action should not be taken against her under Section 6 of the Act and such reply should be given on or before 05 August 2016 in writing or in oral representation before the District Collector-1^st respondent herein.

¶14

The petitioner instead of giving reply to the said notice dated 22.07.2016, filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the same on the ground that the said land is used by the petitioner from the time of her ancestors and for a prolonged period and the 4^th respondent is trying to convert the said land/path into common path and in such circumstances, the impugned notice came to be issued against her.

¶15

Without going into the merits, we hereby direct the petitioner to give a reply to the notice dated 22.07.2016 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any action has been taken by the respondents 1 to 3 even after the reply given by the petitioner and if she is aggrieved by the said action, she is at liberty to move the District Collector under Section 10-A of the Act. However, we hereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till the proceedings are concluded in the manner prescribed under the Act and further, the petitioner may be given due opportunity to substantiate her claim .

¶16

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.

nvsri Sd/-

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

1 The District Collector Erode District Erode

¶22

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

¶23

2 The Revenue Tasildhar Office of the Tashildhar Panneerselvampark Erode District Erode

¶24

3 The Land Revenue Inspector Erode West Circle Erode Taluk and District

¶25

- 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 44857

¶26

- 1 cc to Mr.D.Gopal & D. Raghu, Advocate Sr 44791

¶27

KR/29/8/16

¶28

W.P.No.27292 of 2016

¶29

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

M.PoornaSundari v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.PoornaSundari 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

P.Kandasamy Vs The Chairman

S.Sadhasivam Vs D.Raja

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs L.Isabellah Rani

The Managing Director, Vs the Joint Commissioner of

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs S.Krishnan

K.Settu Vs The District Collector