Disposed

Rathinam v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Feb 2018WP(MD)/2726/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Public Interest Litigation addresses alleged encroachment on public pathways by private individuals. The High Court, avoiding a decision on the merits, ordered two respondents to inspect, survey, and report on the disputed lands within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents 2 and 3 to cause inspection and survey of lands in Survey Nos. 691/10 and 691/38 within four weeks and take appropriate action within eight weeks thereafter.

Rathinam Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶7

W.P(MD)No.2726 of 2018

¶8

Rathinam .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2. The Special Officer/Block Development Officer, Pachamalayankottai Panchayat, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 3. The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 4. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 5. Murugan 6. Vijayakanth 7. Alaguponnu .. Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st to 4^th respondents forthwith to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 5 to 7 in the pathway in Survey No.691/38, 691/10 of Ottupatti, Pachamalayankottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan For R-1, R-3 and R-4 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader For R-2 : Mrs.VPM.Vaishnavi

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

By consent, the main writ petition itself, is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

¶15

Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mrs.VPM.Vaishnavi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶16

This Writ Petition is styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. The petitioner, who is a resident of Ottupatti, Sangalapatti Post, Pachamalayankottai, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, would state that his house bearing Door No.5/23 is situated in Survey No.691/13 and 'Manaivari Thoraya Patta' also stands in his name and according to the petitioner, Survey No.691/1 is classified as 'Grama Natham Poramboke' and it was subdivided and as per the village records, the sub-divided survey Number is 691/38 and it is a main pathway to reach the other streets of Ottupatti. The petitioner would further aver that apart from him, several other residents are also using the said pathway for their ingress and egress and likewise, Survey No.691/10 is a small lane, which connects the South street and North street.

¶17

The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that the private respondents 5 to 7, started putting up a 'thatched shed' in Survey No.691/38 and the fifth respondent had also blocked the entry in Survey No.691/10 and thereby, preventing the other residents to use the said pathway for ingress and egress and the petitioner in this regard, has submitted a representation to the respondents and the third respondent vide proceedings in e.f.vz;.1582/2017/m1 dated 16.06.2017, has informed the petitioner that the matter in issue is within the purview of the second respondent and in the event of the proceedings being initiated for removal of encroachment under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, full and necessary cooperation will be extended to.

¶18

The Sub-Collector of Dindigul District has also sent a communication dated 05.10.2017 in e.f.vz;.9508/2017/M3, to the Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Sempatti, to extend necessary police protection on account of the fact that the second respondent has informed that in the event of the encroachment being removed, there is likelihood of law and order problem.

¶19

The fourth respondent has also sent a communication dated 05.01.2018 in e.f.vz;.3044/17/m5, to the third respondent requesting him to survey and measure the land and once again, the fourth respondent has sent a communication dated 10.01.2018 in e.f.vz;.3044/17/m5, to the Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Sempatti, indicating that removal of encroachment will be done on 12.01.2018 and prays for necessary police protection.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that despite very many efforts have been made, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ encroachment made by the respondents 5 to 7, is yet to be removed and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ

¶21

¶22

Petition.

¶23

This Court heard the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the second respondent also.

¶24

9.Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in this Writ Petition or in his representation, directs the respondents 2 and 3, to cause inspection of the lands in Survey Nos.691/10 and 691/38 of Ottupatti, Sangalapatti Post, Pachamalayankottai, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District and survey the land with the help of the jurisdictional Surveyor, after putting the petitioner as well as the private respondents 5 to 7 and other encroachers if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and depending upon the result of the said inspection, they are directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, within a further period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 to 7 and the other encroachers if any.

¶25

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶32

The Special Officer/Block Development Officer, Pachamalayankottai Panchayat, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶33

The Tahsildar, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶34

The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶35

- 1 CC TO Mr.R.PON KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 47773

¶36

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 48650

¶37

¶38

TE/JC/SAR-4 : 26/02/2018 : 3P/7C ORDER MADE IN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P(MD)No.2726 of 2018 12.02.2018

Rathinam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinam 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

P.Kumaresan Vs the District Collector

G.Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

T.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

A.Ranganathan, Vs the District Collector

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam Vs the District Collector

M. Muthupandi Vs the District Collector