Disposed

Mariappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC19 Apr 2018WP/9320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove encroachments on a public pathway. The Court directed the respondent to take appropriate action against private respondents within ten weeks based on earlier proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to take action against respondents 2 to 6 within ten weeks to remove encroachment based on earlier order, after putting private respondents on notice.

Mariappan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶7

W.P.No.9320 of 2018

¶8

Mariappan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sankari Taluk,
Salem District.
2.Chinnamani
3.Periyamani
4.Kandan
5.Subramani
6.Ramalingam .. Respondents
PRAYER:-

¶9

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.02.2018 and 07.03.2018 and consequently direct the 1^st respondent restore the public pathway by removing the encroachment as per order passed by the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.689/2017/(B) on 17.11.2017.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.Rangeshkanna

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl GP for R1

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of 1^st respondent.

¶15

The writ petition was listed for hearing on 16.04.2018, wherein it was noted that affidavit filed in support of this petition was bereft of any materials as to the right of the petitioner to use the pathway and adjournment was granted on

¶16

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

¶17

that day and it was directed to be posted today.

¶18

Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit of the petitioner dated 17.04.2018, which would disclose among other things that the petitioner is residing at S.No.435/5 at Arasiramani Pit-2 Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District and patta bearing Patta No.3538 also stands in his name. According to the petitioner, lands in S.No.431/1,2 and 423/1, 9B are classified as 'Government Poromboke' land and the said lands are used as common pathway by the petitioner and also by other villagers and according to him, the respondents 2 to 6 had encroached upon the same. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 17.11.2017 in Na.Ka.No.689/2017 (B) and would submit that after conducting an elaborate enquiry with the private respondents, the first respondent directed the private respondents not to obstruct use of the said land by the petitioner as well as by the general public and despite such an order, the respondents 2 to 6 continue to do so and therefore, he has been constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶19

Heard Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the first respondent also.

¶20

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶21

This Court, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the 1^st respondent to take note of it's earlier proceedings dated 17.11.2017 (cited supra) and take appropriate action, against the respondents 2 to 6 after putting them on notice in accordance with law, subject to legal interdict, if any. The said exercise is to be carried out by the 1^st respondent within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken in this regard, to the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 to 6.

¶22

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of . No costs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankari Taluk, Salem District.

¶31

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.30811

¶32

W.P.No.9320 of 2018

¶33

cs/16/05/18

¶34

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

Mariappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariappan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Jesu Rethinam Vs The Union of India

G.Vijaya Vs The District Collector

S.R.K.Manogaran Vs The District Collector

L. Udayakumar Vs The Secretary to Government

P.Marimuthu, Vs The Commissioner

J.Ashok Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner