Disposed

Nainar Mohammed v. the Special Officer / B.Do

Madras HC20 Mar 2017WP(MD)/2883/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed for quashing a notice for non-mentioning of survey number. The court directed the respondents to conduct a proper survey in the presence of the petitioner regarding adjacent survey numbers before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to conduct a proper survey of Survey Nos. 2381 and 2383/2B in the presence of the petitioner. If encroachment exists, the first respondent can proceed on the notice.

Nainar Mohammed Vs the Special Officer / B.Do — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.2883 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.2344 of 2017

Nainar Mohammed

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Special Officer/B.D.O., Bomminayakkanpatti Panchayat, Periyakulam Union, Theni District.

¶10

2.The Thasildhar, Periyakulam Taluk , Theni District. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating with the impugned notice dated 06.02.2017 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as it is arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For Respondent No.2 : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.

¶13

For Respondent No.1 : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.]

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the impugned notice dated 06.02.2017 issued by the first respondent and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶17

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Survey No.2383/2B, wherein he constructed a dwelling house and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Survey No.2381 is situate adjacent to Survey No.2383/2B and the first respondent even without mentioning any survey number in the

¶18

¶19

impugned notice, has issued the same and under the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶20

3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶21

second respondent has contended to the effect that prior to issuance of impugned notice, the second respondent viz., Tahsildar, Periyakulam Taluk, has given a report, wherein it has been clearly stated that in Survey No.2381, some encroachments are in existence.

¶22

4.The main contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that in the impugned notice, survey number has not been mentioned.

¶23

5.As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, no survey number has been mentioned in the impugned notice. However in the proceeding issued by the second respondent, it has been clearly mentioned that encroachments are in existence in Survey No.2381. Further it is an admitted fact that Survey Nos.2381 and 2383/2B are contiguous. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶24

6.In fine, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct proper survey in respect of Survey Nos.2381 and 2383/2B in the presence of the petitioner and if there is any encroachment in Survey No.2381, the first respondent is at liberty to proceed on the basis of the impugned notice. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

1.The Special Officer/B.D.O.,

¶31

Bomminayakkanpatti Panchayat,

¶32

Periyakulam Union, Theni District.

¶33

2.The Thasildhar,

¶34

Periyakulam Union, Theni District.

¶35

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.16157

¶36

+One cc to Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, Advocate, SR.No.15980 smn

¶37

RL/5C/2P/SKN/RSK/27.3.2017

¶38

ORDER MADE IN

¶39

W.P(MD)No.2883 of 2017

¶40

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

¶41

and W.M.P(MD)No.2344 of 2017 20.03.2017

Nainar Mohammed v. the Special Officer / B.Do

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nainar Mohammed v. the Special Officer / B.Do

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

Ravichandran Vs the Disdtrict Collector

M.Nallathambi, Vs the Commissioner

Govindaraju, Vs the District Collector

Asaithambi Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagupandi Vs the District Collector

M.Muthaiah, Vs the District Collector