Disposed

M.Govindaswamy, v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Jan 2017WP/10443/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition seeking removal of encroachment on Pattai Poramboke land. The court directed the Tasildhar (Respondent No. 2) to inspect the site within fifteen days and remove found encroachments within two months, noting allegations of re-encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to inspect the site within fifteen days and remove any encroachment found within two months.

M.Govindaswamy, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P.No.10443 of 2014

¶7

M.Govindaswamy ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Tasildhar,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk.
3. The President,
Porkunam Village Panchayat,
Porkunam Village,
Naidumangalam Via,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District.
4. Dhavamani
5. Jagadeesan ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents 4 and 5 in the Pattai Poramboke comprised in Survey No.101 Porkunam Village, Thiruvannamalai District by considering the representation dated 2.9.2013.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondent : Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

The petitioner alleges that post removal of the encroachment, re-encroachment is happening, for which no action has been taken by respondent No.2.

¶14

We, thus, call upon respondent No.2 to cause an inspection to be made of the site within fifteen days of the receipt of the copy of this order and any encroachment found would be removed in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months thereafter.

¶15

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Tasildhar,
Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk.
3. The President,
Porkunam Village Panchayat,
Porkunam Village,
Naidumangalam Via,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District.
+1cc to Mr.G.Rajan, Advocate, S.R.No.505
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.823

¶16

W.P.No.10443 of 2014

¶17

CA(CO) CA(18/01/2017)

¶18

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

M.Govindaswamy, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Govindaswamy, 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

T.Ramadoss, Vs The District Collector

Mrs. v.Syed Ali Fathima, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/s.Tgi Packaging Private Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Arulmighu Kottaimariamman Vs The Commissioner

M.Sakthivel, Vs the District Collector

P.Nagarajam Vs Rajeev Ranjan IAS