Allowed

S. Balasubramaniyam, v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC13 Jul 2017WP(MD)/12768/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted two Writ Petitions challenging notices issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the notices solely because they were issued without prior notice under Section 7 of the Act. The matter was remitted to the respondent with liberty to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices were quashed. The matter was remitted to the respondent with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

S. Balasubramaniyam, Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶7

W.P.(MD).Nos.12768 and 12769 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 and 1 to 3 of 2014

¶8

S.Balasubramaniyam : Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.12768 of 2014 B.Latha @ Premalatha : Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.12769 of 2014

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Tahsildhar, Karur Taluk, Karur District. : Respondent in both W.Ps.

¶11

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned notice issued by the respondent herein in his proceedings in vide 06754 dated 04.06.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondent or his men, agent , servant or any other person authorized by him, from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands comprised in Survey No.155/1 admeasuring to an extent of 0.20.0 Ares situated at Atchimangalam Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Nallathambi

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader **********

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

In both the Writ Petitions, challenge is to notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶18

It is seen from the records as well as it is admitted by the respondent that the impugned orders were not preceded by notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1905. Hence, on that sole ground, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remitted back

¶19

¶20

to the file of the respondent with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(AD-II) /True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Tahsildhar, Karur Taluk, Karur District.

¶26

+2 cc to Mr.D.Nallathambi , Advocate in SR.No. 65385 +1 cc to Mr.Special Government Pleader in SR.No.66119

¶27

SML/MYR

¶28

AE/JC/SAR1/24.07.2017/2P/5C

¶29

Common Order made in W.P.[MD].Nos.12768 and 12769 of 2014 Dated:13.07.2017

¶30

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

S. Balasubramaniyam, v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Balasubramaniyam, v. the Tahsildar

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 Secretary to Government, Vs Thiru.K.Krishnan

A.Sundar Vs State of Tamil Nadu

T. Thenmohan, Vs M/S. Kovilpatti Bar

B.Nagesh, Vs the Deputy General Manager

P. Annakkodi, Vs the District Collector

The Director General of Police Vs M.Arun