Disposed

S.Periasamy v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC7 Sept 2016WP/34549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the Tahsildar to inspect an alleged encroachment on the Pachai Padayatchi Eri public tank within one month. Upon finding the facts, the Revenue authorities must report to the District Collector within two months to pass appropriate orders after notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to inspect encroachment within one month; District Collector to pass orders within two months based on report.

S.Periasamy Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.09.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P. No.34549 of 2014

¶7

S.Periasamy .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Tahsildar,
Kunnam Taluk,
Perambalur District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
3.The District Collector,
Perambalur,
Perambalur District.
4.The Government of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
5.A.Periyasamy .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the encroachment caused by the 5^th respondent in the public tank namely Pachai Padayatchi Eri situated in Survey No.124 and 125 in Vaidyanathapuram village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District and restore the Pachai Padayatchi Eri and the Water Source Channel free from encroachment.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4 * * * * *

¶11

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

The petitioner alleges encroachment by respondent No.5 in the public tank viz., Pachai Padayatchi Eri situated in S.Nos.124 and 125 in Vaidyanathapuram village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District and for restoration of Pachai Padayatchi Eri and the water source channel be kept free from encroachments.

¶13

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, we direct that an inspection be carried out by respondent No.1/Tahsildar within one month of the date of a receipt of copy of this order and report be submitted to the District Collector/respondent No.3, who will, depending on the result of the inspection, pass orders after notice to all concerned within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

¶14

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar bbr To 1.The Tahsildar, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The District Collector, Perambalur, Perambalur District.

¶17

4.The Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶18

+1 cc to Mr.R.Balasubramanian Advocate sr 50881

¶19

W.P.No.34549 of 2014
aa22/09/2016

¶20

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

S.Periasamy v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Periasamy v. The Tahsildar

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

Susi Ganesan Vs v. Elango

M/S.Navaneethaam Traders Vs Smt.Rosary Krishnamurthy

National Highways Authority Vs Larsen and Toubro Limited

K.N.Krishnamoorthy Vs The District Collector

Kaariappan Vs The District Collector

V.C.Ajeethkumar Vs the Indian Oil Corporation