Disposed

S.Sethuraman, v. the District Collector

Madras HC7 Sept 2018WP(MD)/8547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order under Section 6 without prior notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, the court granted liberty to the third respondent to issue notice under Section 7 within two weeks before passing the Section 6 order, thereby disposing of the petition without quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the third respondent to issue notice under Section 7 of the Act within two weeks before issuing notice under Section 6.

S.Sethuraman, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

W.P.(MD) No.8547 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8050 and 8051 of 2018

S.Sethuraman

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar (Revenue), Kariyapatti,

¶11

Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.The Special Officer / Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat),

¶13

Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 issued by the second respondent and consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 13.02.2018 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Sadiq Raja

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand 1 and 2 Government Advocate

¶18

For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Rajarajan

¶19

Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 issued by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 13.02.2018 which was issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, 1905 without issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act.

¶23

¶24

2.Heard Mr.Sadiq Raja, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Adnand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent.

¶25

3.Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the third respondent fairly submitted that the impugned notice ought to have been issued after issuing the notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, he sought for liberty to issue notice under Section 7 of the Act first calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and thereafter issue notice to the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act.

¶26

4.Considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the third respondent to first issue notice under Section 7 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter issue notice to the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶33

2.The Tahsildar (Revenue), Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶34

3.The Special Officer / Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶35

+1CC to Mr.Sadiq Raja, Advocate, SR.No.83528 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 83351

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.8547 of 2018 07.09.2018

¶37

SRM

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ES/PM/SAR 3/03.10.2018/2P/6C

S.Sethuraman, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sethuraman, 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

T.K.Krishnasamy Vs the Authorized Officer

Mrs.Paravathyammal, Vs Karur Vysya Bank

Mrs.Indira Vs Karur Vysya Bank

J.Jeyaraj, Vs the Commissioner

Ayyadurai, Vs the District Collector

V. Chinna Kalimuthu Vs the District Collector