Allowed

K.a.Murugan v. the Thakkar

Madras HC4 Oct 2017WP/14155/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking an injunction against the respondent from forcibly evicting the petitioner from a house. The court permitted the petitioner to reside in the place under specific conditions and directed the respondent is open to take appropriate legal action for eviction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to reside in the place; respondent open to take appropriate legal action for eviction.

K.a.Murugan Vs the Thakkar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.14155 of 2004 and WPMP.No.16713 of 2004

¶6

K.A.Murugan ... Petitioner Vs. The Thakkar, Arulmighu Poothakaliamman Tirukoil, Poothapadi, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District. ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondent from evicting the petitioner forcibly from his house.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.R.Marudhachalamoorthy O R D E R

¶9

This petition has been filed to forbear the respondent from evicting the petitioner forcibly from his house.

¶10

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that he has no instructions from the respondent.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may not be evicted from the house forcibly and the Government has constructed the house of the petitioner in his patta land under the Indira Memorial House Scheme as per the instructions issued by the Assistant Commissioner of H.R & C.E Department, Erode. The learned counsel has also stated that the petitioner was suspended from the post of Poojari in the year 2003. With regard to the allotment of the residence along with family photo, the petitioner's name is shown in serial No. 11. However, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that petitioner has been given Patta.

¶12

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

¶13

Since the petitioner is now continuing as Poojari, pursuant to the interim order of this court and pursuant to the communication of H.R & C.E Department, Erode dated 14.10.2003, the petitioner shall be permitted to reside in the place. It is open to the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law with regard to evicting the petitioner.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

s/d-

¶16

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶17

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
bsm/pvs
To
The Thakkar,
Arulmighu Poothakaliamman Tirukoil,
Poothapadi, Bhavani Taluk,
Erode District.
+1 CC to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate sr 71884.
W.P.No.14155 of 2004
and WPMP.No.16713 of 2004
GJ(CO)
sp(31/10/2017)

¶18

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

K.a.Murugan v. the Thakkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Murugan v. the Thakkar

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

M/s.Deepam Roadways Vs The Joint Commisioner (Rp)

Tvl.Jay Marbles, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Atchaya Enterpriese Vs The Additional commissioner

Sakthi Coffee Estates (P) Ltd. Vs 1.THE State of Tamilnadu Rep.

Tamilnadu Industrial Explosive Vs Union of India, Rep by Its

P.Karuppanan Vs the Junior Electrical Engineer