Dismissed

Mr.Masilamani, v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Jun 2018WP/8084/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the respondents' attempt to dig a bore-well in the petitioner's private land was dismissed. The Court held that property disputes regarding title, ownership, or possession must be decided by the Civil Court and are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court if rights are infringed; the writ petition is dismissed.

Mr.Masilamani, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :14.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.8084 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Masilamani ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The District Collector,

¶9

Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶10

2.The Block Development Officer, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶12

4.The President, Kottambedu Village, Sambuvarayanallur, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District – 606903. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing to direction, forbearing the respondents from digging bore-well in the petitioner's private Patta land situated at Tiruvannamalai District, Arani Taluk, No.18, Kuppam Village, comprised in S.No.2/2B2 to an extent of 0.04.5 hectare in Patta No.665.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Pragash For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai 1 to 3 Government Advocate For Respondent 4 : No appearance O R D E R

¶15

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to forbear the respondents from digging bore-well in the writ petitioner's private Patta land situated at Tiruvannamalai District, Arani Taluk, No.18, Kuppam Village, comprised in S.No.2/2B2 to an extent of 0.04.5 hectare in Patta No.665.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the respondents are now attempted to dig a bore-well in his private land.

¶18

Be that as it may.

¶19

This Court is of an opinion that if at all any property right is infringed, it is for the writ petitioner to approach Civil Court of law in accordance with the procedures contemplated. All the property disputes and related issues are to be decided by the Civil Court in accordance with the procedures.

¶20

However, this Court can not go into title, ownership or possession rights of the respective parties in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court if any of his rights are infringed. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nmm/asi To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 4.The President, Kottambedu Village, Sambuvarayanallur, Arani Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District – 606 903. + 1 cc to Mr. MAR.Pragash, Advocate Sr.38169 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.37869 W.P.8084 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 (CS-VII) EU(09/07/2018 )

¶23

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

Mr.Masilamani, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Masilamani, 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

P.Parthiban Vs Mr. Gajendran

Tmt.B.Sivakami Vs The Joint Director of School

M/s.Amarambedu Munuswamy Vs The Employees State

Mr.v.Bakthavachalam Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

Mr.v.Bakthavachalam Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

P.Murugaiyan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu