Allowed

V.Renganathan v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC5 Dec 2018WP(MD)/4399/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Leave to file a writ petition challenging interference with peaceful possession of petitioner's property. Court held respondent must follow due process under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act before passing orders. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to issue a communication under Section 15(2) calling for objections and a personal hearing. No orders affecting the petitioner have been passed under Section 15(1). Petition

V.Renganathan Vs the District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4399 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.4494 of 2018

¶7

V.Renganathan ... Petitioner

¶8

/Vs./

¶9

The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Tiruchirappali.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property T.S.No.2019/2, in Thimmaraya Samuthiram Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichirapalli District otherwise than the due process of law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jayavel For Respondent : Mr.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed for forbearing the respondent from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in T.S.No.2019/2, in Thimmaraya Samuthiram Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichirapalli District otherwise than the due process of law.

¶15

The learned Additional Advocate General on instructions submitted that the petitioner's land now sub-divided as 2019/3A3 forms part of T.S.No.2019/145. Since the revenue records have not been mutated, the authorities in their notification have mentioned the name of the original owner.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed on record the proceedings issued by the concerned authority indicating that after sub-division, the property even in the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

Therefore, the respondent is obliged to issue a communication under Section 15(2) of the Act to

¶19

¶20

the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to offer his objection and also fix a date for personal hearing. Thereafter, the orders will be passed by the respondent. As on date, no orders affecting the petitioner have been passed under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. Till such notification is issued, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

¶22

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS I)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS II)

¶25

¶26

¶27

The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Tiruchirappali.

¶28

1CC TO MR. S. JAYAVEL, ADVOCATE SR 99208 DS RSK SAR 2 10 DECEMBER 2018 2P 3C

¶29

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4399 of 2018 05.12.2018

¶30

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

V.Renganathan v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Renganathan v. the District Revenue Officer

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

C. Britha Vs S. Magesh

Subramani Vs the Inspector of Police

The Managment Vs the Presiding Officer

P.Singaravelan, Vs the Management of

Tvl.Vimal Agency, Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

Tvl.Sukra Bags & Belts, Vs the Appellate Deputy