Allowed

C. Rengasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Sept 2017WP(MD)/20146/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a memorandum issued by the sixth respondent calling them to remove encroachment. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held the order violative of natural justice for failing to provide a hearing beforehand.

What did the court decide?

The impugned memorandum dated 23.10.2015 was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the file of the Special Officer for passing fresh orders hearing the parties.

C. Rengasamy Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:06.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20146 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015

¶7

C.Rengasamy 2. Krishnasamy 3. Sri Renugakengammal Temple, Represented by its Trustee Chinnasamy ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul Disttrict. 3. The Commissioner of Village Panchayat, Village Panchayat Union, Kuzilamparai, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. 4. The Tahsildar, Vedasanthur Taluk Office, Dindigul District. 5. The Block Development Officer, Kuzliamparai, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. 6. The President of Panchayat, R.Velludu Village, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of India to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the sixth respondent in

¶9

¶10

Na.Ka.No.1408/2014/B3 dated 23.10.2015 and quash the same.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan

¶12

For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For Respondents 5 & 6 : No appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

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

¶15

The writ petitioner challenges the memorandam dated 23.10.2015 issued by the sixth respondent calling upon the writ petitioner to remove the encroachment in question.

¶16

2.The impugned order in this writ petition is violative of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is quashed on that ground. The matter is remitted to the file of the special officer, R.Velludu Village panchayat, Dindigul District for passing fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶17

3.This writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶20

/True copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The District Collector, Dindigul District.

¶24

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul Disttrict.

¶25

The Commissioner of Village Panchayat, Village Panchayat Union, Kuzilamparai, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶26

The Tahsildar, Vedasanthur Taluk Office, Dindigul District.

¶27

The Block Development Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kuzliamparai, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶28

¶29

- 1 CC TO M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS,SR No.76838

¶30

- 1 CC TO MR.K.K.Ramakrishnan, ADVOCATE IN SR No.77159

¶31

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No.77680

¶32

vsg/rmk

¶33

MK/JC/SAR-2/27.09.2017/3P/9C

¶34

W.P(MD)No.20146 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015

¶35

06.09.2017

¶36

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

C. Rengasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Rengasamy 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

P. Duraisamy, Vs the District Collector

Venkatachalam Vs the Commissioner

Mohammed Riyas Bazul Ashab Vs the District Collector

Anbuselvi Vs the Divisional Manager

S. Kaliammal Vs the District Collector

Aandavar Puthiram Vs the Commissioner