Dismissed

Leela Mari v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Mar 2018WP(MD)/13476/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction for land grabbing action against individuals accused of encroaching the petitioner's property. The Court held that the petitioner failed to file a proper complaint with the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to file a proper complaint.

Leela Mari Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.03.2018 CORAM

¶3

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

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.13476 of 2014

¶5

Leela Mari ... Petitioner

¶6

-vs-

¶7

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District.

¶8

2.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District.

¶9

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Division, Thiruvaiyaru,

¶10

Thanjavur District.

¶11

4.The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Budalur Post, Thanjavur District.

¶12

5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Singipatti Police Station, Singipatti, Budalur Post, Thanjavur District.

¶13

6.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur District. 8.The Tahsildar, Budalur Main Road, Singipatti Post, Budalur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶14

9.Antony Sami Udayar 10.Agilan Irudayaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11.John Kumar

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate land grabbing action against the respondents 9 to 11 and to restore the patta in favour of the Petitioner in respect of Punja lands measuring 0.49.5 ares in Survey No.8/1, Sanurapatti Village, Budalur Taluk,Thanjavur District considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 26.7.2014.

¶18

For Petitioner : M/s.D.Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthu 1 to 8 Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.A.Arun Prasad 9 to 11

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for a direction to take appropriate land grabbing action against the respondents 9 to 11 and to restore the patta in favour of the Petitioner in respect of Punja lands measuring 0.49.5 ares in Survey No.8/1, Sanurapatti Village, Budalur Taluk, Thanjavur District, considering the representation of the Petitioner, dated 26.07.2014.

¶21

2.The learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner states that a complaint for land grabbing is preferred by the Writ Petitioner and the same has not been registered by the Police Officials. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner states that the Writ Petitioner is residing in Malaysia and taking undue advantage of this factor, the respondents 9 to 11 had encroached the land belonging to the Writ Petitioner. In this regard, the Writ Petitioner had submitted a complaint to the authorities on 26.7.2014 to initiate appropriate criminal action against the respondents 9 to 11 for land grabbing. However, no action was taken in this regard.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the respondents 9 to 11 states that the contesting respondents have also filed a suit in O.S.No.364 of 2014, which is pending before the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur. Therefore the parties may be directed to adjudicate the civil suit, now instituted.

¶23

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner opposed the contention by stating that the suit was instituted by the contesting respondents only after filing of the criminal complaint by the Writ Petitioner before the Police Officials. Thus the complaint filed for land grabbing is to be dealt with independently by the authorities concerned and the suit is filed by the respondents in order to circumvent the criminal complaint.

¶24

5.This Court is of an opinion that the complaint filed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petitioner is to be properly dealt with in accordance with law. The Police Officials on receipt of a complaint, is to conduct

¶25

¶26

a preliminary enquiry and if a prima facie case is found, then they have to act in accordance with law. However, it is found that the Writ Petitioner has not filed a proper complaint to the competent authority having jurisdiction. Thus the Petitioner is at liberty to file a proper complaint before the competent authority having jurisdiction and in the event of receiving any such complaint, the authorities competent are bound to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶27

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Division, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Budalur Police Station, Budalur Post, Thanjavur District. 5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Singipatti Police Station, Singipatti, Budalur Post, Thanjavur District. 6.The District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur District. 7.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur District. 8.The Tahsildar, Budalur Main Road, Singipatti Post, Budalur Taluk, Thanjavur District. +One cc to M/s.A.Arun Prasad, Advocate, SR.No.55247 vsn RL/10C/3P/SV/MMS/SAR1/22/3/2018

¶34

W.P(MD) No.13476 of 2014

¶35

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

¶36

13.03.2018

Leela Mari v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Mari 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

India Evangelical Lutheran Vs the District Elementary

India Evangelical Lutheran Vs the District Elementary

S. Clament, Vs the Managing Director

Aranmanai Raman Chettiar Vs a.R.Mohan Ram

G.Sagunthala Vs the Director of Public Health

S. Sahayaraj, Vs the District Collector