Disposed

P.Karuppaiah v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Jul 2017WP(MD)/11573/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's request for immediate removal of encroachments. Instead, the court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and directed the authorities to issue a show-cause notice and remove encroachments within three months following natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to file fresh representation; authorities directed to remove encroachments within 3 months after issuing show-cause notice and complying with natural just

P.Karuppaiah Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.07.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

W.P(MD)No.11573 of 2014

P.Karuppaiah

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

¶10

2.The Thasildhar, Taluk Office, Manamelkudi Taluk.

¶11

3.R.Balasubramaniyan .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to remove the encroachments made in Survey No.113/1 and 116/8 situated in Karahathikottai Revenue Village, Manalmelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶13

For petitioner : Porkodi Karnan for M/s Polax Legal Solutions

¶14

For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.N.Mohan

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J. ]

¶18

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made in Survey Nos.113/1 and 116/8 situated at Karahathikottai Revenue Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have merely made a show of removal of the encroachments and have not actually removed the same. He had given a representation dated 29.03.2014 in this regard. The second respondent had already https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given a reply on 06.06.2014. But the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the same.

¶20

¶21

Therefore, we permit the writ petitioner to give a fresh representation to the second respondent. The second respondent, on receipt thereof, shall issue a show-cause notice to the third respondent and remove the encroachments, if any, in Survey Nos.113/1 and 116/8 situated at Karahathikottai Revenue Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District, within a period of three months therefrom, of course after complying with the principles of natural justice.

¶22

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Crl side)

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

To:

¶28

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

¶29

2.The Thasildhar, Taluk Office, Manamelkudi Taluk. +1cc to M/s.Polax Legal Solutions,Advocate,SR. 68601 +1cc to M/S.Special Government Pleader,SR. 68986

¶30

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11573 OF 2014 27.07.2017

¶31

TA/MR/AKV KK/SV MMS/SAR3-22.08.2017-2P-5C

¶32

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

P.Karuppaiah v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Karuppaiah 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

The Chief Engineer, Vs the District Collector

Aarthi, W/O Lenin Vs the District Colelctor

Tamil Selvi, Vs the District Collector

Latha Vs the District Collector

Saravanan, Vs the District Collector

M.Kasilaingam, Vs the Distrct Collector