Allowed

Selvaraj, v. the Thasildar

Madras HC10 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the Block Development Officer to take appropriate action to remove encroachment by respondents 3 and 4, following a communication from the Tahsildar, within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent was directed to take appropriate action to remove encroachment within eight weeks, following due process of law.

Selvaraj, Vs the Thasildar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.[MD].No.21169 of 2018

¶7

Selvaraj : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Tahsildar, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Aavudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

Raju

¶12

Senthilrajan : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made in Mangai Yanthal Ourani situated in S.No.119/1 based on first respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.2612/2018/A1, dated 16.07.2018 and pass orders.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

On the complaint made by the petitioner, a communication was sent by the first respondent to the second respondent in Na.Ka.2612/2018/A1, dated 16.07.2018, seeking appropriate action by removing the encroachment alleged to have been made by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents 3 and 4. As there is no further action, pursuant to the communication dated 16.07.2018, the petitioner has come

¶19

¶20

forward to file this Writ Petition.

¶21

Considering the above, we direct the second respondent to take appropriate action, pursuant to the communication dated 16.07.2018, by following the due process of law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of, on the above terms. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶27

¶28

The Tahsildar, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶29

The Block Development Officer, Aavudaiyarkovil Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶30

1 CC TO Mr.D.RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 89619

¶31

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 90240

¶32

¶33

TE/RP/SAR-4 : 26/10/2018 : 2P/5C

¶34

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.21169 of 2018 10.10.2018

¶35

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

Selvaraj, v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj, v. the Thasildar

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

Thulasi Vs the Principal Secretary to

P.G.Paulraj Vs State Represented through

V.R.Karthikeyan Vs the District Collector

Jesuraj, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mariammal Vs the Principal Secretary to

S.Murugesan, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative