Disposed

S.K.Subadhra, W/O.Kalyana v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Jan 2016WP(MD)/1684/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an encroachment notice via a writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the parties to treat the notice as a show-cause notice and outlined a procedure for the petitioner to produce title documents, follow up with objections, and subsequent survey to determine encroachments.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition with directions to treat the impugned notice as a show-cause notice and follow a specified procedure for document production and survey.

S.K.Subadhra, W/O.Kalyana Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.1684 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.1440 of 2016

¶6

S.K.Subadhra ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector,

¶9

Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar,

¶11

Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

¶13

Highways Department, Ambasamudram,

¶14

Tirunelveli District.

¶15

4.The Commissioner,

¶16

Ambasamundram Municipality, Tirunelveli District.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating with the impugned Notice No.100/2014/A1 dated 21.01.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For Respondents 1-3 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi,

¶20

Special Government Pleader. For 4^th Respondent : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶23

The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a property on which she has built 26 shops and let out to tenants, has come up with the above writ petition challenging the notices for the removal of encroachment issued by the Assistant Divisional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Engineer, State Highways Department.

¶24

¶25

2.Heard Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, leanred Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned counsel takes notice for the fourth respondent.

¶26

3.The main ground on which the petitioner assails the impugned orders is that the property in question is a private property and that she has got documents to support the same. Therefore, her grievance is that if an opportunity had been granted to her, she would have produced the documents before the respondents.

¶27

4.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing both parties to treat the impugned order as show cause notice. Within two weeks from today (namely, 27.01.2016), the petitioner shall file her objections to the impugned orders treating them as show cause notices. If the tenants want to say something, they are also free to make their objections to the impugned orders. Thereafter, the third respondent shall fix a date within two weeks from the date of receipt of objections, calling upon the petitioner to submit documents. On the date fixed, the petitioner shall produce the documents on the basis on which she is claiming title to property. Within two weeks thereafter, the third respondent with the assistance of the officials of the revenue and survey department, shall survey the land with reference to the documents produced, find out if there are encroachments and pass an order. If there are encroachments, the encroachments shall be removed after passing orders. No costs. W.M.P(MD)No.1440 of 2016 is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶30

/True copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

sms To

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

¶34

2.The Tahsildar, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

¶35

Highways Department, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District. +1 cc to Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan,Advocate, SR No. 4461

¶36

Writ Petition (MD) No.1684 of 2016

¶37

and

¶38

W.M.P(MD)No.1440 of 2016 27.01.2016

¶39

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

¶40

RG.PM-MP/SAR-II 27/01/2016 2P/5C

S.K.Subadhra, W/O.Kalyana v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Subadhra, W/O.Kalyana 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.Ravi Shankar Vs Authorized Officer /

Mr.J.G.Cuthbert, S/O.Gasper, Vs the Registrar

Infant Jesus and Charitable Vs the District Collector

Murugan@Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Christian Endaevour Primary Vs the Commissioner

P.Mary, D/O. Panis, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu