Disposed

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2016WP/42283/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition, directed the District Collector to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the Tahsildar regarding encroachment on a pathway. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation on merits within two months after due notice to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit representation to the Tahsildar; directed to consider it on merits within two months.

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.12.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.42283 of 2016

¶3

Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
2.The Revenue Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Thittakudi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
3.Rokini ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing
the first respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 15.10.2016 and to remove the encroachment on
the pathway by the third respondent herein bearing Survey
No.44/1, measuring about 36.2 feet width 1.6 links length and
situated at Koothappankudikadu Chavadi Street, Thittakudi Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan,
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2

¶4

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

¶5

ORDER

¶6

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶7

Seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.10.2016 and to remove the encroachment on the pathway by the third respondent herein bearing Survey No.44/1, measuring about 36.2 feet width 1.6 links length and situated at Koothappankudikadu Chavadi Street, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶8

2.The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.10.2016 pointing out certain encroachment in the pathway by the third respondent in Survey No.44/1 measuring about 36.2 feet width 1.6 links length and situated at Koothappankudikadu Chavadi Street, Thittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District. The said representation is yet to be considered and on that allegation, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶9

3.We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader, who in turn, submitted that the competent authority to take action is Tahsildar, Thittakudi, to whom, the petitioner has to necessarily make a representation. Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to submit a representation along with a copy of this order to the Tahsildar, Thittakudi, Cuddalore District and on such representation being made, the same shall be considered on merits, after due notice to the third respondent as well as the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

4.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶15

mmi To

¶16

1.The District Collector,

¶17

Office of the District Collector,

¶18

Cuddalore District,

¶19

Cuddalore.

¶20

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

¶21

2.The Revenue Tahsildar,

¶22

Office of the Tahsildar, Thittakudi Taluk,

¶23

Cuddalore District.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.Velmurugan, Advocate, S.R.No.71554

¶25

+1cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras chennai,

¶26

S.R.No.70952

PK(CO)

BB(30/12/2016)

W.P.No.42283 of 2016

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

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years 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

S.Umapathy, Vs Thiru S.Sivashanmugaraja, IAS

T.Pandian Vs The District Collector

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Suo-Motu Pil

K.Raju, S/o.Late Mr.Gopal, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Ramalingam Vs The commissioner

Coimbatore Consumer Cause Vs Mr.S.K.Prabakar, Ias.