Allowed

M.Kasilaingam, v. the Distrct Collector

Madras HC27 Jul 2017WP(MD)/11943/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged encroachment in highways by fifth respondent. Court held owner of abutting property can seek removal. Directing fourth respondent to remove encroachment within three months after giving prior notice and following due process. Connected MPL closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed fourth respondent to remove encroachment in highways within three months after giving prior notice and following due process.

M.Kasilaingam, Vs the Distrct Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.11943 of 2014 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶8

M.Kasilingam : Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Tahsildhar, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Railway Feeder Road, Ramanathapuram Town, Ramanathapuram District. 5. Katterum Perumal : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment made in Survey Number 217/1B, at N.Vettukadu Village, Narippaiyur Panchayat, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, by considering the representations dated 29.05.2014 and 17.07.2014 to remove the encroachment.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Amarnath For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. M.Govindan Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent No.5 : Mr.C.Surikumar for Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the encroachment committed by the fifth respondent in the highways in Survey Number 217/1B, at N.Vettukadu Village, Narippaiyur Panchayat, Kadaladi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. He had given representations dated 29.05.2014 and 17.07.2014 to the authorities. Since, there was no action initiated thereon, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶14

No person who is owning the property abating a highways is entitled to access the same. Since, such a right of the writ petitioner has been infringed, on account of the encroachment committed by the fifth respondent, he is entitled to seek removal as an encroachment. However, the fourth respondent has not taken action so far.

¶15

We therefore, direct the fourth respondent to remove the encroachment, if any, found in the highways as alleged by the writ petitioner. It is needless to state that the fourth respondent shall give prior notice and follow the due process of law, before effecting such removal. The fourth respondent shall complete such exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District,

¶23

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Paramakudi,

¶24

Ramanathapuram District.

¶25

The Tahsildhar,

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶27

¶28

The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Railway Feeder Road, Ramanathapuram Town, Ramanathapuram District.

¶29

+1cc to M/S. S.SIVA THILAKAR, Advocate, SR.No.68462. +1cc to M/S. M.SUBASH BABU, Advocate, SR.No.68506. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.68983.

¶30

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD) No.11943 of 2014 27.07.2017

¶31

MR/TA/AKV SDS/KKR/SAR 3/16.08.2017/3P/8C

¶32

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

M.Kasilaingam, v. the Distrct Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kasilaingam, v. the Distrct 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 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

P.Karuppaiah Vs the District Collector