Dismissed

P.Ramakrishnan v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Feb 2018WP/2045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition challenging an enquiry notice for land survey under Article 226. The Court held the petition not maintainable against a simple notice, directing the petitioner to raise objections before issuing authority instead.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Ramakrishnan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.2045 of 2018 and WMP.Nos.2557 & 2558 of 2018

¶6

P.Ramakrishnan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Tirupur District.
2. The Sub Collector
Tirupur District.
3. The Tahsildar
Avinashi Taluk
4. The Village Administrative Office
Palangaarai Village
Avinashi Taluk.
5. The Taluk Surveyor
Avinashi Taluk.
6.P.Gandhimathi
7. P.Sivaprakash
8. P.Balachandar
9. Varadharaja Gounder
10.V.Subramaniyam
11. K.Subramaniyan
12. K.Murugasamy
13.K.Dhanabakkiyam
14.K.Kalpana

¶7

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

¶8

15.K.Thangathal

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 5th respondent herein pertaining to his notice dated 19.01.2018 bearing No.AA/12/2018 and to quash the same and forbear the respondents from undertaking a survey / subdivision of the property without there being a decree for partition with the said notice.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5 O R D E R

¶12

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the fifth respondent dated 19.01.2018, which is nothing but a notice issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to appear for an enquiry scheduled on 24.01.2018, for considering the application of one Ponnusamy for surveying the subject matter land.

¶13

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the said request of Ponnusamy, who is no more, as on today, cannot be entertained by the fifth respondent, based on certain facts and circumstances, this Court, is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, as the impugned proceedings is nothing but a simple notice of enquiry. Therefore, nothing prevents the petitioner from appearing before the fifth respondent and raise all the objections, as raised in this writ petition.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry was not conducted on the said day, namely 24.01.2018, and on the other hand, it was deferred, as the petitioner has indicated before the fifth respondent that he would move a writ petition.

¶15

Therefore, it is for the petitioner to appear before the fifth respondent and raise all the objections. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, without expressing any view on the

¶16

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

¶17

merits of the claim made by the petitioner, only on the reason that this writ petition is not maintainable, as against the enquiry notice issued by the fifth respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
mk
To
1.The District Collector
Tirupur District.
2.The Sub Collector
Tirupur District.
3.The Tahsildar
Avinashi Taluk
4.The Village Administrative Office
Palangaarai Village, Avinashi Taluk.
5.The Taluk Surveyor
Avinashi Taluk.
+ 1 cc to M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate,SR.7565
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.8002
W.P.No.2045 of 2018
nr 14/02/2018

¶19

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

P.Ramakrishnan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramakrishnan 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

N.Sekar, Vs Inspector of Police

Shanthi, Vs The Inspector

Udhayam Constructions Vs Principal Secretary/

Palani Gounder Vs The District Collector

G.Thilagavathi, Vs The State Government of

Mr.S.I.Arulraj, Vs The Chairman