Disposed

Annakodi, v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Nov 2018WP(MD)/19197/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct authorities to remove encroachment by private party in public pathway. Since the Court will not conduct roving enquiry, it directs the Tahsildar to conduct an inquiry after notice to parties and remove encroachment if found.

What did the court decide?

Director the third respondent (Tahsildar) to conduct an enquiry and remove encroachment if found after due notice and hearing.

Annakodi, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.11.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19197 of 2018

Annakodi

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Pudukkottai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Officer of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

4.Radhakrishnan : Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments made by the respondent No.4 in public pathway in Survey No.13 situated at Thirunalur North Post, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Raghul For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.K.Balasundaram

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

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

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments made by the respondent No.4 in public pathway in Survey No.13 situated at Thirunalur North Post, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard Mr.G.Raghul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Sethuraman, learned Special Government Pleader

¶20

¶21

appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶22

3.The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is in possession of the property in Survey No.14A and that was adjacent to Survey No.13 situated at Thirunalur North Post, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, which was classified as pathway. Taking advantage of the possession of the land adjacent to the public pathway, the respondent No.4 occupied the public pathway by constructing bathroom and asbestos shed and closed the public pathway. In view of the act committed by the respondent No.4, there is no pathway is available to reach the property in Survey No.12A. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation to the official respondents to remove the encroachment put up by the respondent No.4. Since the same has not been considered by the official respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶23

The fourth respondent has entered appearance through the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent has submitted that Survey No.13 is a patta land of various purchasers and therefore, it is incorrect to state that the fourth respondent has encroached Survey No.13.

¶24

This Court is not conducting any roving enquiry. Already a representation was given to the third respondent. The third respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the fourth respondent. During enquiry, if the third respondent finds any encroachment in Survey No.13, he shall remove the encroachment in accordance with law, after serving notice and after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the necessary parties.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector,Collectorate Office,Pudukkottai.

¶32

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Officer of the Revenue Divisional Officer,Aranthangi Taluk,Pudukkottai District.

¶33

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

¶34

3.The Tahsildar,Taluk Office,Aranthangi Taluk,Pudukkottai District.

¶35

¶36

+1cc to Mr.G.Raghul Advocate in SR.No.97020 +1cc to Mr.K.Balasundaram Advocate in SR.No.97195 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.97355

¶37

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.19197 of 2018

¶38

CM SPBK SAR2 13.12.2018 3P 7C

¶39

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

Annakodi, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annakodi, 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

Mrs.Kmb Marbles & Granites Vs the Authorized Officer

M.Mohamed Aris Vs the Superintendent of Police

Dr.S.Venkatesh Babu Vs the Commissioner

E.Hakeem Raja Vs the Sub Collector

S.Sitharthan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Majitha Vs the Superintendent of Police