Allowed

R.Kaliswaran v. the District Collector

Madras HC28 Apr 2016WP(MD)/8661/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a direction to remove an encroachment. The Madurai Bench directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders following G.O.Ms.No.540 after giving a reasonable opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2016 and pass orders following G.O.Ms.No.540 after giving reasonable opportunity.

R.Kaliswaran Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.8661 of 2016

¶8

R.Kaliswaran .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Ramanathapuram – 623 501.

¶13

4.C.T.Raju .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2016 and order to remove the encroachment in S.No.267/1, Mandapam, Ramnad District as per the report of the 2^nd respondent dated 28.12.2015.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.S.D.Krishnakumar

¶16

For R1 to R3 :Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

¶19

Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 14.03.2016 and to remove the encroachment in S.No.267/1, Mandapam, Ramnad District as per the report of the 2^nd respondent, dated 28.12.2015.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

2.The petitioner has relied upon the representation sent by the village people, dated 10.08.2015 and the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.03.2016. The petitioner has also filed a communication received from the Public Information Officer, dated 23.12.2015 to show that there is an encroachment as alleged, in S.No.267/1, Mandapam, Ramnad District.

¶23

3.Since the representation of the petitioner is pending with the authorities, the authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.03.2016 and pass orders on the same, following G.O.Ms.No.540, Revenue (LD6(2)) Department, dated 04.12.2015 and in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, uninfluenced and unscrambled with any of the observations made by this Court in the writ petition.

¶24

4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS I)

¶27

/True copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶31

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶32

3.The Tahsildar,

¶33

Taluk Office,

¶34

Ramanathapuram – 623 501.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.S.D.Krishna Kumar, Advocate SR.No.25144

¶36

sm:An-MP:19.5.2016:2P/5C

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.8661 of 2016

¶38

28.04.2016

¶39

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

R.Kaliswaran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kaliswaran 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 S.Selvapandi

The Regional Provident Fund Vs M/S. Tvs Sri Chakra Limited

S.Srinivasan, Chartered Vs the Secretary to Government

K.K.Dt Madha Saarbatra Vs the Secretary to Government

The Secretary, Vs J.Selvaraj

The State of Tamilnadu Vs S.M.Queen