Dismissed

Sekar, v. the District Collector

Madras HC30 Aug 2018WP(MD)/16092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Writ Petitions challenging notices under TN Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were dismissed. The court refused to entertain petitions because the notices cited an incorrect survey number, referencing 38/2 instead of 38/1. The court further rejected a request for alternative land as the petitioners were rank encroachers on a water body.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices dated 07.06.2018 and 20.06.2018 stood dismissed as petitions were not entertained due to clerical error in survey numbers.

Sekar, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.08.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶4

W.P.(MD) Nos.16092 and 17343 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14334 and 15248 of 2018

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.16092 of 2018

¶6

Sekar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Madurai.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar,

¶11

Thirumangalam Post and Taluk, Madurai District.

¶12

4.Louisraj ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.2784/18/A2, dated 12.06.2018 and quash the same insofar as petitioner is concerned, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathisubramanian For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondent 4 : Mrs.P.Jessijeeva Priya

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.17343 of 2018

¶16

Pownthai ... Petitioner

¶17

Vs.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.The District Collector, Madurai.

¶19

¶20

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty, Madurai District.

¶21

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Post and Taluk, Madurai District.

¶22

4.Louisraj ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.2784/18/A2, dated 20.06.2018 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathisubramanian For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondent 4 : Mrs.P.Jessijeeva Priya ***

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶27

In view of the fact that the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

¶28

2.The petitioner in the respective Writ Petitions has challenged the impugned notices dated 07.06.2018 and 20.06.2018 issued by the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, in and by which the petitioners were asked to remove the encroachment made in Survey No.38/2 situated in Vagaikulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

¶29

3.Heard Mr.P.Ganapathisubramanian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.P.Jessijeeva Priya, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶30

4.A perusal of the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18658 of 2017 shows that Ms.Gurugammal, Mr.Sekar, Ms.Pounthai and Mr.Alagumalai have put up their houses encroaching Odai poramboke in Survey No.38/1 at Vagaikulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. This Court in the said order has directed the Tahsildar, Thirumangalam, to proceed further following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, for removal of the encroachment as it was confirmed that there was an encroachment made https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by them, as per the details furnished before this Court. The impugned notices dated 07.06.2018 and 20.06.2018 issued by the

¶31

¶32

Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District, although indicate Survey No.38/2 instead of Survey No.38/1, we are unable to entertain the Writ Petitions. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶33

5.At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Court may direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners for providing alternative land for which the petitioners are ready to give 27 cents of their patta land to the Government.

¶34

6.We are not inclined to consider the request made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners are rank encroachers and therefore, they are not entitled to be considered at all. Moreover, they have put up their houses by encroaching the water body.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar(crl.side) /True Copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Madurai.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatty, Madurai District.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumangalam Post and Taluk, Madurai District.

¶41

+2CC TO Mr.P.Ganapathisubramanian, ADVOCATE IN SR.NOs.81929,81930. +1CC TO Mrs.P.Jessijeeva Priya, ADVOCATE IN SR.NO.81219. +1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR.NOs.81906,81469,81470.

¶42

SRM

¶43

DS RP SAR-1 09.10.2018 3P/8C

¶44

W.P.(MD) Nos.16092 and 17343 of 2018 and

¶45

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14334 and 15248 of 2018 30.08.2018

¶46

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

Sekar, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekar, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.T.Bharath Vs the District Collectior

M.Sabeena Begum Vs the District Collector

M.P.Muruganantham, Vs the Registrar General

Raja Holdings (Firm) Vs N.Navaneethakrishnan

Dharmalingam, Vs the Executive Officer

M.Chandramohan, Vs the Election Commissioner