Disposed

P.Loganathan v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Apr 2018WP/8930/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for removal of encroachment on land. Court directed the 5th respondent (Tahsildar) to comply with a Memo from the 1st respondent (Collector) to survey land and initiate action under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act within eight weeks, noting previous relief was ineffective.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent to act on Memo O.Mu.No.4013/2018/L-3 dated 27.02.2018 and complete action within eight weeks.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 12.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶8

WP.No.8930/2018

¶9

P.Loganathan .. Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

1.The District Collector Namakkal District.

¶12

2.The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District.

¶13

3.The District Revenue Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶14

4.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Namakkal District.

¶15

5.The Tahsildar Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶16

6.The Assistant Engineer Public Works Department Rasipuram Taluk Namakkal District.

¶17

7.The Executive Officer Athanur Town Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶18

¶19

8.The Village Administrative Officer Athanur Town Panchayat Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District. .. Respondents

¶20

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachment in S.No.17/3, Athanur Villge, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District as per the proceedings O.Mu.No.4013/2018/L-3 dated 27.02.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathyaseelan For R1 to R8 : Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Spl.GP

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶24

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 8.

¶25

2 The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, filed WP.No.2956/2018

¶26

for removal of the encroachment on the land classified as “Paadhai Poramboke” in S.No.173 at Athanur Panchayat Union and a representation

¶27

was made to the effect that the encroachment has been removed and this Court, vide order dated 01.03.2018 had closed the said writ petition, based

¶28

¶29

on such representation. The petitioner, having found that no encroachment has been removed, submitted a petition, based on which the office of the 1^st respondent has sent a Memo dated 27.02.2018 in O.Mu.No.4013/2018/L-3 to the 5^th respondent to survey the land admeasuring to an extent of 0.26.5 Hectares in S.No.17/3 of Athanur Village and thereafter, initiate action in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and complete the same on or before 31.03.2018 and despite such a direction from the superior official, the 5^th respondent, so far, not taken any action and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶30

3 The Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 and perused the materials placed before it.

¶31

4 Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the 5^th respondent to act on the Memo of the 1^st respondent dated 27.02.2018 in O.Mu.No.4013/2018/L-3 and comply with the said direction in accordance

¶32

¶33

with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the petitioner as well

¶34

as to the persons/encroachers concerned.

¶35

5 The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.

¶36

No costs.

¶37

6 Post the writ petition on 29.06.2018 for filing Status Report of

the 5^th respondent.

[MSNJ] [PRMJ]

12.04.2018

Internet : Yes

1.The District Collector Namakkal District.

¶46

2.The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District.

¶47

3.The District Revenue Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶48

4.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat Namakkal District.

¶49

5.The Tahsildar Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶50

6.The Assistant Engineer Public Works Department Rasipuram Taluk Namakkal District.

¶51

7.The Executive Officer Athanur Town Panchayat, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶52

8.The Village Administrative Officer Athanur Town Panchayat Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶53

¶54

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND P.RAJAMANICKAM, J., AP

¶55

WP.No.8930/2018

¶56

12.04.2018

P.Loganathan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Loganathan 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

S.Vishnupriya Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Shahabudeen, Vs The District Collector

V.Rajasekaran Vs The District Collctor

Deepak Mehra, Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Ramaiya, S/o.Govindasamy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

T. Sivakumar Vs Arunmozhi