Dismissed

Kasinathan v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Jul 2017WP(MD)/1012/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought directions to remove encroachments on a public pathway by the fifth respondent. The court dismissed the petition, noting the existence of a valid patta held by the encroacher, advising the petitioner to challenge the patta decree separately if the land is truly public.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded to any party.

Kasinathan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 25.07.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1012 of 2014

¶7

Kasinathan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Pudukottai. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai. 4. The Tahsildar, Karambakudi Post and Taluk, Pudukottai District. 5. Selvaraj ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment in S.F.No.187/4A and 4B of Ponnanviduthi Village, Karambakudi Taluk by the 5^th respondent at once.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Kandha Vadivelan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen, AGP for RR1 to 4 Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar for R5

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.)

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments stated to have been caused by the fifth respondent in respect of the public pathway in S.F.No.187/4A and 4B of Ponnanviduthi Village, Karambakudi Taluk.

¶15

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

¶16

2.The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition itself indicates that the fifth respondent obtained patta in respect of the

¶17

¶18

land in question.

¶19

3.There is no question of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the fifth respondent to remove the obstruction in view of the patta obtained by him. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge the order granting patta to the fifth respondent in respect of the land in S.F.No.187/4A and 4B, in case, the said land is found to be a public pathway as indicated in the judgment and decree in O.S.No.325 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai.

¶20

4.This writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The District Collector, Pudukottai.

¶27

The District Revenue Officer, Pudukottai.

¶28

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai.

¶29

The Tahsildar, Karambakudi Post and Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶30

- 1 CC TO Mr.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 67599 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 68390

¶31

- 1 CC TO Mr.D.RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 67481

¶32

SKM/ARUL

¶33

TE/SKN-RSK/SAR-III : 08/08/2017 : 2P/8C

¶34

W.P(MD)No.1012 of 2014 25.07.2017

¶35

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

Kasinathan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasinathan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman, Vs P. Anantha Raja

Kalidas Vs the District Collector

The Commissioner, Vs K.Kumari Selvan

Mallika Vs the District Collector

Sethuraman Vs the District Collector

K. Manikandan, Vs the Commissioner