Petitioner challenged a notice to remove encroachment. Court noted prior order directing removal, set notice as served, granted two weeks for explanation with documents to be considered by the Commissioner.
Petitioner directed to treat notice as served and granted two weeks to submit explanation with documents for consideration by the Commissioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P(MD)No.8279 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.7850 of 2018
Saraswathi
... Petitioner
vs.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records relating to the impugned memorandum issued by the 2nd respondent dated 06.04.2018 in Na.Ka.No.266/2017/A5 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramar Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.266/2017/A5
2
calling upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by her in S.No.94/1 situate at Thattanoothu Village, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.
(i) It is the case of the petitioner that the land in S.F.No.94/1 does not belong to her. When that being so, she cannot assert any right over the said property.
(ii) When there was an order passed by this Court on 05.01.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.134/2017, which was filed by one Mr.Periyasamy against the petitioner for removal of encroachment made in S.F.No.94/1 as mentioned above, this Court has also given a direction directing the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Dindigul East Taluk, to take appropriate proceedings, if there is objectionable encroachment in S.F.No.94/1, by evicting the encroachment, under due process of law within two months. Therefore, when the impugned notice has been issued based on the direction issued by this Court on 05.01.2017 in W.P.No.134/2017, the petitioner cannot come before us again without documents and without approaching the Block Development Officer, the second respondent herein and hence, the petitioner is directed to treat https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the impugned order as a notice served on her and two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to give her explanation to the said
3
notice along with necessary documents and on receipt of such explanation, the Commissioner, Dindigul Panchayat Union, is directed to consider the same pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
Sd/Assistant Registrar (RTI)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
To
TE/RP/SAR-1 : 03/09/2018 : 3P/6C
W.P(MD)No.8279 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.7850 of 2018 10.08.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition against the encroachment removal notice issued by the 2nd respondent be disposed of on the merit or sent for explanation.
Whether the petitioner who claims the land does not belong to her can still claim ownership.
Whether the petitioner required to show explanation and documents regarding her objectionable encroachment before the reasoning court.
Saraswathi
The District Collector, Dindigul
The Block Development Officer, Dindigul Panchayat Union, Dindigul
The Tahsildar, Dindigul East Taluk
The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Dindigul East Taluk
T. RAJA
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
