Disposed

D.Sriram, v. the District Collector

Madras HC27 Nov 2018WP(MD)/22050/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the Tahsildar to inspect a cart track in Tirunelveli District to determine encroachment. The official was ordered to issue notices to alleged encroachers, including the petitioner if found liable, and conclude the process within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to inspect the cart track and issue notices to alleged encroachers, including the petitioner if applicable, and conclude the process within four months.

D.Sriram, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.11.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.[MD]No.22050 of 2018 and W.M.P.[MD]No.20004 of 2018

¶4

D.Sriram : Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶7

The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

Jeyasingh : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in S.No.185/2 in Malaiyankulam Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick

¶12

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader

¶13

For Respondent No.4 : Mr.K.Guhan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

***************

¶16

[ Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.]

¶17

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to direct the second respondent to remove the encroachment stated to have been caused on the public property by the fourth respondent, more particularly in Survey No.185/2 of Malaiyankulam Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the fourth respondent is in occupation of a cart track which is in Survey No.185/2, and that the Tahsildar has

¶19

¶20

already initiated proceedings. However, the fourth respondent refused to receive the notice.

¶21

3.The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, contending that he is not in occupation of the public property. According to the fourth respondent, the petitioner is also in possession of the public property and as such, action should be taken against him also.

¶22

4.We direct the Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District, to cause inspection of the cart track, after issuing notice to the alleged encroachers, including the fourth respondent. In case, it is found that the petitioner is also an encroacher, notice should be issued to him also for removal of such encroachment. The Tahsildar is directed to conclude the entire process as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶28

¶29

The District Collector, Tirunelveli,

¶30

Tirunelveli District.

¶31

The Tahsildar,

¶32

Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶33

The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station,

¶34

Tirunelveli District.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.R.J.Karthick, Advocate Sr.No.97414

¶36

+1cc to SPL.Govt.Pleader, Sr.No.97450

¶37

+1cc to Mr.K.Guhan, Advocate Sr.No.97127

¶38

¶39

KM/BK/SAR3/17.12.2018/2P/7C

¶40

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

¶41

Order made in W.P.[MD]No.22050 of 2018 Dated: 27.11.2018

D.Sriram, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sriram, 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

Bharathy Kannamma Vs the Superintendent of Police

The Assistant Director of Vs v.Appavoo

The Inspector General of Vs K.Govindasamy

Ponraj, Vs the State Election

G.Muthuramalingam, Vs the Commissioner

Thirupathi Vs the Joint Registrar / the