Allowed

P.Megarajan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Nov 2018WP(MD)/22494/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench directed the Chief Educational Officer to inspect a higher secondary school encroaching on a water body. It held that since no statutory appeal was filed by the encroacher, the second respondent retains the right to execute the earlier eviction order with police assistance if necessary.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to execute the earlier eviction order; the fourth respondent is permitted police assistance for enforcement; the Chief Educational Officer is directed to inspect the

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.22494 of 2018

¶6

P.Megarajan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2. The Executive Officer, Mudukulathur Town Panchayat, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Tahsildar, Mudukulathur Taluk, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District. 4. M.Seeni Mohamed Correspondent, Pallivasal Higher Secondary School, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the encroachment made by the 4th respondent in the Saravana Poigai Oorani comprised in Survey No.346/4 situated at Mel Mudukulathur Group, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District and to close the same for the interest of public at large based on the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.P3/28255/2018 dated 27.07.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramu For R1 & R3 : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar For R4 : Mr.C.Prithviraj

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

The second respondent passed an order of eviction directing

¶10

¶11

the fourth respondent to remove the encroachment. The order was challenged before this Court in WP(MD)No.14309 of 2018. The Division Bench, having found that the order is appealable before the appellate authority, granted two weeks time to the fourth respondent to file an appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector was directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks.

¶12

2.Since the fourth respondent failed to file statutory appeal within the cut off period, the local body approached the District Collector. The District Collector issued notice to the fourth respondent.

¶13

3.The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the encroachment.

¶14

4.The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, by producing a copy of the notice of enquiry dated 03.09.2018 submitted that the appeal is pending before the District Collector.

¶15

5.The notice of enquiry issued by the Collector pertains to a direction to the fourth respondent to appear before the first respondent with relevant documents. Admittedly, no appeal was filed by the fourth respondent within the time granted by this Court. The fourth respondent even after constructing a compound wall by encroaching on a water body, stick to his stand by not even filing an appeal before the appellate authority. In view of the failure on the part of the fourth respondent to file an appeal, the second respondent would get a right to execute his earlier order of eviction dated 28 June, 2018. It is open to the second respondent to take police help, in case, the same is necessary for enforcing the order of eviction.

¶16

6.The fourth respondent is conducting a Higher Secondary School. We direct the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District to inspect the institution in question and take action, in case it is found that the school has no basic facilities. This direction is given in view of the submission made on behalf of the fourth respondent that a toilet is constructed on the water body and abutting the compound wall.

¶17

7.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

¶24

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶25

The Tahsildar, Mudukulathur Taluk, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.

¶26

Copy To:-

¶27

The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶28

1 CC TO Mr.N.DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96417 + 1 CC TO Mr.S.RAMU, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96885 + 1 CC TO Mr.C.PRITHVIRAJ, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 96502 MJ

¶29

TE/SV/SAR-3 : 21/12/2018 : 3P/7C

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.22494 of 2018 22.11.2018

¶31

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

P.Megarajan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Megarajan, 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

R. Selvaraj Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Management, Vs M.Chithirqampillai

Dr. R. S. Lal Mohan Vs the District Collector

Sumathi, Vs the District Collector

P.Rajendra Perumal, Vs the District Collector

A.Maheswaran, S/O. Aiyyar, Vs the Secretary to Government