Disposed

Adhimoolam v. The District Collector

Madras HC24 Nov 2017WP/29891/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras issued directions to the Tahsildar to inspect poramboke land encroached upon by specific respondents around a Vinayagar temple. Petitioner alleged encroachment prevented worship; Court ordered survey and action within 12 weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to inspect the land with a Surveyor, put parties on notice, and take appropriate action within 12 weeks.

Adhimoolam Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 24.11.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI

¶6

WP.No.29891/2017

¶7

Adhimoolam S/o.Mookan .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2.The Tahsildar Pappireddipatti Taluk Dharmapuri District. 3.Aadhimoolam, S/o.Kundan 4.Anandan, S/o.Kundan 5.Aadhimoolam, Melagu .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to remove the encroachments caused by the respondents 3 to 5 in and around Vinayagar Temple, Puduppatti, Adidravidar Colony, Rani Mookkanur Post, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District within a time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For RR1 & 2 : Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, AGP

¶8

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶9

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

¶10

2 The petitioner claims that he is a resident of Puduppatti Adidravidar Colony, Rani Mookkanu Post, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District and has filed the

¶11

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

¶12

present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation alleging among other things that in his hamlet, there are more than 300 dwelling houses and a Vinayagar temple is also located and the presiding Deity is worshipped by the people of Pappireddipatti Taluk and also by the residents of his hamlet and it is situated in Natham poramboke land. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondents 3 to 5 had encroached upon the said poramboke land in and around the temple premises, more particularly, on the Eastern side of the temple and as a consequence, the devotees could not enter the temple for the purpose of worship and this fact was also brought to the knowledge of the 1^st respondent by the petitioner by way of a representation dated 19.09.2015, with a copy marked to the Deputy Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2^nd respondent herein and the Revenue Inspector of the jurisdiction and despite receipt and acknowledgment, no steps hae been taken to remove the encroachment and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶13

3 This Court heard the submissions of Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials placed before it.

¶14

4 Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in his representation dated 19.09.2015 or in this writ petition, directs the 2^nd respondent to cause inspection of the land in question with the help of the jurisdictional Surveyor, after putting the petitioner, the respondents 3 to 5 and other encroachers, if any, on notice and and depending upon the same, shall take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 and the other encroachers, if any.

¶15

6 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶18

//True copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The District Collector Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶24

2.The Tahsildar Pappireddipatti Taluk Dharmapuri District.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.C.Munusamy, Advocate SR.No.83132
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.84212

¶26

WP.No.29891/2017
GN(18/12/2017)

¶27

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

Adhimoolam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adhimoolam 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

Selvaraj, M/a 50 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

G.v.Dharanivel Vs The Assistant Engineer

R.Kalidasan Vs The Assistant Engineer

M.Mohan, Vs The District Collector

S.Babu, Vs The District Collector

Mr.Alexander Zachariah Vs The Commissioner