Remanded

S.Arulraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Nov 2018WP(MD)/17472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding encroachment on government land (kalam poramboke), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the District Collector to conduct a survey and initiate removal action within eight weeks if an encroachment is found.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to survey the land and initiate action to remove encroachment within eight weeks.

S.Arulraj Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.11.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.THARANI W.P.(MD)No.17472 of 2018

¶5

S.Arulraj : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶6

2.The Tahsildar, Sivagiri Taluk Tirunelveli District. 3.R.Samuthirakani : Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made by the third respondent in Ammaparai Kalam Poramboke land measuring 1.90.00 hectares in S.No.356/2, Thirumalapuram Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.M.Jeyakumar for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick for R3 *********

¶9

ORDER ****** [Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J]

¶10

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made by the third respondent in Ammaparai Kalam Poramboke land measuring 1.90.00 hectares in S.No.356/2, Thirumalapuram Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and owning land and adjoining the land belonging to the petitioner, S.No.356/2 measuring 1.90.00 hectares is situated, which is classified as kalam poramboke land and the same is used as pathway by the petitioner and others. While so, on 30.01.2018, the third respondent encroached the said poramboke land by cultivating sugarcane and this illegal act was objected to by the petitioner and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the third respondent has purchased the lands in S.Nos.358/1A2 and 358/3

¶12

¶13

and the four boundaries has been shown as kalam poramboke. But, in spite of the objection raised, he is carrying on his illegal activities and has given false complaint against the petitioner and other persons. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said complaint made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., a case has been registered in Crime No.44/2018 for offences under Sections 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. Thus, by lodging a criminal complaint, the third respondent is trying to stop the petitioner and other people from objecting to his illegal act. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶14

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there is an encroachment.

¶15

In view of the said submission made, this Court is constrained to pass the following order:

¶16

“The second respondent is directed to conduct survey of the land in question, with the relevant records and also title documents and on inspection, if the second respondent finds that there is an encroachment, he is directed to initiate action in accordance with law to remove the same. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶17

No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶21

¶22

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶23

2.The Tahsildar,

¶24

Sivagiri Taluk Tirunelveli District.

¶25

- 1 CC TO Mr.R.J.KARTHICK , ADVOCATE IN SR No. 94627

¶26

- 1 CC TO Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick , ADVOCATE IN SR No.94846.

¶27

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.94743. RR

¶28

DS SV SAR3 13 11 2018 2P 6C

¶29

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

¶30

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.17472 of 2018 09.11.2018

S.Arulraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Arulraj 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

Kaleeswaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Soorya@Sooryakumar Vs the Principal Secretary to

G. Nagamani Vs the Superintendent of Police

Murugan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Vigneshwaran Vs the Principal Secretary to

Sankaran Vs the Principal Secretary to