Partly allowed

A.Gopal v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Jul 2018WP/17876/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the entry of the respondent on the petitioner's agricultural land for soil testing. The respondent acknowledged a discrepancy in revenue records classifying the land as a palm Grove but directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation to address the grievance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

A.Gopal Vs The District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.17876 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.21164 of 2018

¶6

A.Gopal ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri District.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kariamangalam, Dharmapuri District.

¶11

4.The Block Development Officer, O/o The Block Development Officer, Krishnagiri Main Road, Kariamangalam, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent to consider and take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.06.2018.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Special Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2018.

¶16

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land covered in Survey No.767 situated at Bandarahalli, Dharmapuri District and their family is enjoying the peaceful possession of the land, for more than 90 years from generation to generation. He has

¶17

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

¶18

been paying the necessary Government taxes regularly. The revenue records also show that the petitioner is the owner of the land and is enjoying the same. While so, in the month of April, 2018, the 4^th respondent, suddenly, without any prior information trespassed into his land and took some soil for the purpose of testing for constructing a Government building. The 4^th respondent has no jurisdiction to enter into the petitioner's private land.

¶19

3.The learned counsel also submitted that there are many Government lands available in the nearby vicinity. The 4^th respondent has wantonly chosen the petitioner's land for constructing Government building only at the instigation of the local Minister and political persons with a malafide intention to harass him.

¶20

4.When this Court asked the revenue records in favour of the petitioner to prove his claim or any other document like Title Deed that would prove that he is the owner of the land, no such document was produced, except 3 tax receipts issued on 18.05.1982, 27.01.1993 and 14.02.2018, which also does not show the Survey No.767, Bandarahalli, Dharmapuri District.

¶21

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents drawing the notice of this Court to page-1 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner submitted that although the petitioner's name is mentioned in the kist receipts, the revenue records viz., the Adangal show that the land in Survey No.767 bearing Patta No.2A is only a Palm Grove. Out of the total extent of 0.70.5 ares, the petitioner has cultivated only in an extent of 0.11.0 ares of land. However, the 3^rd respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation, he pleaded.

¶22

6.In view thereof, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2018 and pass orders on merits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Salem Main Road, Dharmapuri District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Kariamangalam,
Dharmapuri District.
4.The Block Development Officer,
O/o The Block Development Officer,
Krishnagiri Main Road,
Kariamangalam, Dharmapuri District.
+1cc to Mr.M.D.THIRUNAVUKKARASU, Advocate, S.R.No.48440
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 48910
W.P.No.17876 of 2018 and
W.M.P.No.21164 of 2018
TR(02/08/2018)

¶28

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

A.Gopal v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Gopal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Krishnamoorthy, Vs Joint II Sub Registrar

G.A. Bushra Shabnam, Vs Dr. K. Gopal, I.A.S.

M. Vijaykumar Vs K.Gopal, IAS

Rehane Yavar Dhala Vs The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

M/s.Jeyachandran Industries Vs The Chairman

M.Rajamani, Vs The Inspector of Police