Dismissed

S.Sivaji v. the Commissioner

Madras HC28 Jul 2017WP(MD)/13722/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the municipal Commissioner from interfering with the petitioner's construction. The court held that while the petitioner's statutory function cannot be restrained, proper notice must be issued before any eviction if the petitioner is an encroacher.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus dismissed. Petitioner to be given notice if found to be an encroacher before eviction.

S.Sivaji Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.07.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.[MD].No.13722 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶3

S.Sivaji : Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The Commissioner, Gudalur Municipality, Theni District. 2.Samyvel 3.Ranjith : Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from in any manner interfere with the petitioner's construction in his property bearing Door No.83A, Ward No.11, in Mela Gudalur, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District, without following any due process of law.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanakumar

¶8

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Karupasamy Pandian

¶9

For Respondents 2 &3 : Mr.P.Santhoshkumar, For Mr.S.Kadarkarai ******** O R D E R ***********

¶10

[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.]

¶11

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to restrain the first respondent from taking action against him on account of his proposal to make construction at Door No.83/A, Ward No.11, Mela Gudalur, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶12

There is no question of restraining the first respondent from taking up his statutory function. In case the petitioner is found to be an encroacher, necessarily, notice should be given to him before eviction by the first respondent. We, therefore, do not find any reason to issue a Mandamus as prayed for by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶13

¶14

The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl side)

¶16

/ True Copy /

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S.)

¶18

¶19

The Commissioner, Gudalur Municipality, Theni District.

¶20

+1cc to M/S.R.SURIYA NARAYANAN, Advocate SR.No.69100

¶21

+1cc to M/S.S.KADARKARAI, Advocate SR.No.68810

¶22

SML

¶23

MAS/KK/SAR2:09.08.2017:2P-4C

¶24

Order made in W.P.[MD].No.13722 of 2014 Dated: 28.07.2017

¶25

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

S.Sivaji v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivaji v. the Commissioner

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

Latha Vs the District Collector

Saravanan, Vs the District Collector

P.Karuppaiah Vs the District Collector

Rosi Foundation, Vs the District Collector

S.K. Senthilkumar Vs the District Collector

P. Suresh Kumar, Vs the District Collector