Dismissed

P.Ramesh, S/O.Periyadurai v. the District Collector

The Civil Jurisdiction, Powers and Procedure – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus for the removal of encroachment on Government land

Madras HC13 Apr 2016WP(MD)/7222/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a Mandamus for removing encroachment. The Court held that the statutory grievance redressal procedure under G.O.Ms.No.540 dated 04.12.2014 had not been exhausted and disposed of without issuing the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus for removal of encroachment not directed; petitioner directed to follow the appellate procedure under G.O.Ms.No.540 dated 04.12.2014.

P.Ramesh, S/O.Periyadurai Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.04.2016

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.7222 of 2016

¶6

P.Ramesh .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶9

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶11

M.Alamarathan .. Respondents

¶12

Praye: The Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the 4th respondent in Survey No.1325/2 situated at East Ayakudi Village Palani Taluk Dindigul District by considering the petitioners representation dated 29.02.2016.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.K.Gokul For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)

¶16

Alleging encroachment made by the fourth respondent, in Survey No.1325/2, situated at East Ayakudi Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District, a representation dated 29.02.2016 is stated to have been made. Contending inter alia that there is no action, Mandamus is sought for to remove the alleged encroachment by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.02.2016.

¶17

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶18

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

¶19

3.Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2014 set out the guidelines for dispose of

¶20

¶21

the grievance relating to eviction of encroachmenta in Government lands.

¶22

4.Procedure set out is extracted hereunder:-

¶23

“(i)This Committee shall admit only the Appeal

¶24

Petitions on eviction of encroachment either on the ground of failure on the part of Tahsildar to give reply within 60 days or if the petitioner is not satisfied with the reply given or action taken by the Tahsildar.

¶25

(ii)The Appellate Committee shall be constituted

¶26

with the following officials:

¶27

1)Revenue Divisional Officer;

¶28

2)Deputy Superintendent of Police; and

¶29

3)Deputy Inspector of Survey.

¶30

(iii)This Committee shall meet atleast once in a month and decide each and every case individually after giving an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The Committee shall also take up personal inspection, if required, along with Tahsildar and Surveyors, after giving advance intimation to the petitioner.

¶31

(iv)A written communication should be sent to the petitioner conveying the decision of the above Appellate Committee within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Appeal Petition.”

¶32

4.Representation has been made only on 29.02.2016. As per the procedure set out, the Tahsildar has to complete the process within 60 days from the date of receipt of the petition. Even that time, has not been expired. As per the said Government Order, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the reply or action taken by the Tahsildar, remedy before the appellate authority at the District Level is provided to ventilate the grievance relating to encroachment.

¶33

5.In the light of the above procedure and the reasons stated supra, we are not inclined to issue any writ of Mandamus. Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy, as per the procedure set out in G.O.Ms.No. 540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2014.

¶34

6.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶37

/True copy/

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

rj2

¶42

To 1.	The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.	The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.
3.	The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
+1	cc to Mr.K.Gokul,Advocate Sr No.20731
+1	cc to Special Government Pleader Sr No.21069
rg.	GSV-PM/SAR-III 04.05.2016 3P/6C
	W.P.(MD)No.7222 of 2016 13.04.2016

¶43

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

P.Ramesh, S/O.Periyadurai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramesh, S/O.Periyadurai 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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Correspondent

The State of Tamilnadu Vs A.K. Shimila

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs v.Ashok Sundaramoorthy

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Palaniappan

The Secretary to School Vs H.Shahul Hameed

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Lillis Mary