The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging encroachment proceedings. The court directed the fifth respondent to raise defenses and complete the proceedings under the relevant Act within two months, dismissing the plea for writ of mandamus.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.01.2017
CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P. No.42115 of 2016
K.G.Sundaram ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
2. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
Erode Region, Collectorate, Erode.
3. The Tahsildar,
Perundurai, Erode District.
4. The Executive Officer,
Kanchikovil Town Panchayat,
Kanchikovil, Erode District.
5. Rajeswari ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4 th
respondent to forthwith implement the direction issued by the 3 rd
respondent by his letter in Na.Ka.6018/2014/A8 dated 06.07.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Government Pleader for RR 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader for R-4 : Mr.D.Gopal for R5
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner alleges that the fifth respondent has encroached of the land meant for a pathway. The report filed by the fourth respondent shows that an inspection has been made at the site to measure the property and fix the boundary lines for R.S.No.1099/22 and thereafter, notices had been issued to the fifth respondent under Sections 5 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is also informed that the fifth respondent has filed a vexatious suit in O.S.No.1 of 2017 before the District Munsif Court of Perundurai on 02.01.2017, even though such a suit would not be maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in Consumer Action Group vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (4) CTC 483.
+1cc to Mr.D.Gopal, Advocate, S.R.No.4227 +1cc to Mr.P.P.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate, S.R.No.4343 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.4291
W.P.No.42115 of 2016
RSY(CO) CA(01/02/2017)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to direction to implement the encroachment proceedings against the fifth respondent.
Whether the notice issued under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is sufficient to dispose of the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Consumer Action Group vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (4) CTC 483Referred¶12
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K.G. Sundaram
The District Collector, Erode District
The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Erode Region
The Tahsildar, Perundurai
The Executive Officer, Kanchikovil Town Panchayat
Rajeswari
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
M. SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
