Disposed

V.Govindhasamy, v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Dec 2016WP/42376/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus to direct respondents to dispose of representations regarding alleged encroachment on designated land. The Court directed the Special Tahsildar to pass orders on the latest representation within four weeks after due notice, while also requiring the petitioner to submit a copy of the representation.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders on the last representation dated 04.11.2016 within four weeks after due notice.

V.Govindhasamy, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. No.42376 of 2016

¶6

V.Govindhasamy ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravida)
Ulundurpet Taluk, Villpuram.
3. Kandhan
4. Thoppalan
5. Dhandapani
6. Malar
7. Chakkaravarthi
8. Elumalai
9. Muthulakshmi
10.Azhaguvel
11.Govindan ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct
respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the petitioner representation
dated 14.10.2016, 18.10.2016 and 04.11.2016 in respect of
encroachment in S.F.No.184 at Thulampoondi Colony, Aalur Madura,
Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶7

This pro bono litigation has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass

¶8

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

¶9

appropriate orders on the pending representations dated 14.10.2016, 18.10.2016 and 04.11.2016 in respect of the encroachment alleged to have been made in S.F.No.184 at Thulampoondi Colony, Aalar Madura, Thirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶10

2.In the representations aforesaid, the petitioner has alleged that an extent of 0.57 ares in S.No.184 has been assigned in favour of Adi Dravidar community people. However, the non-scheduled caste people are in possession and encroachment of the aforesaid land by attempting to put up construction. It has been further stated that the construction is going on despite the complaints made, followed by an inspection by respondent no.2. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate action will have to be taken.

¶11

3.Considering the aforesaid submission and in the light of the limited prayer sought for, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders on the last representation stated to have been made on 04.11.2016 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order, after due notice to the parties concerned including the petitioner as well as the alleged encroachers. The petitioner is also directed to furnish a copy of the last representation dated 04.11.2016 within one (1) week from today.

¶12

4.Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra To 1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi-Dravida) Ulundurpet Taluk, Villpuram. +1cc to Mr.M.V.Raja, Advocate, S.R.No.71093 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.71242 W.P.No.42376 of 2016 VGI(CO) CA(05/12/2016)

¶13

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

V.Govindhasamy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Govindhasamy, 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

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

N.Ramalingam Vs The commissioner

Vijayalakshmi, 45 Years Vs The District Collector

M/s Sidharth Heights Vs The Member Secretary

M.Murugan, S/o.Mr.Muthu, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Gayathri Devi, Vs The Commissioner