Dismissed

M.Aruchamy Gounder v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Feb 2019WP/27066/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to evict the fourth respondent from an unauthorized occupation of a public cart track and restore its width. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the title had already been declared in favor of the fourth respondent by a civil court decree in a preceding suit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Writ Petition prayed for eviction of the fourth respondent and restoration of public cart width is rejected as the civil court had already decided the title.

M.Aruchamy Gounder Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.02.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶5

WP. No.27066 of 2004 and WP.MP.No.32958 of 2004

¶6

M.Aruchamy Gounder ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector
Coimbatore.
2. The Sub-Collector
Pollachi.
3. The Tahsildhar
Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
4. T.Kandasamy Chettiar (deceased)
5. Alukkammal
6. K.Sivasamy
7. K.Ganesh @ Aruchamy
8. Jothimani
9. Rathinam
10.Eswari
11.Saraswathi
12.Krishnaveni
13.Maheshwari ..Respondents
[R5 to R13 substituted as LR's in the place of R4 deceased,
as per the order of this Court dated 21.01.2006
made in WP.MP.No.29024 of 2005 in WP.No.27066 of 2004.]

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to initiate action under the T.N.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 against the 4th respondent and evict him from his unauthorised occupation of a portion of the East-West Public Cart Track bearing S.F.No.232/3 in Kanjampatti Village, Pollachi Tk., Coimbatore District and restore the said Public Cart Track to its original width of 16 ft. and extent of 12 sq.mts within the time.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Naveen For Respondents: Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, AGP for R1 to R3 No Appearance, for RR4 to 13

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to evict the fourth respondent from his occupation of a Cart Track comprised in Survey No.232/3 in Kanjampatti Village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District and consequently, restore the Public Cart Track to its original width.

¶12

It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein that the fourth respondent herein had already filed a suit in O.S.No.498 of 1998 before the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injuction of his title over the subject property and for consequential injunction. The said suit came to be decreed on 19.12.2002, as such, the subject property's title had been declared in favour of the fourth respondent. Hence, the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition to vacate the fourth respondent from the subject property is not maintainable.

¶13

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no clarity in the counter affidavit as to whether any appeal has been preferred from the original judgment and decree in O.S.No.498 of 1998. It is true that the counter affidavit sates that the official respondents intended to file appeal against the above judgment and decree. The counter affidavit came to be filed on 14.12.2004 and though the matter was listed on various occasions, the respondents had not furnished the present status of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.498 of 1998. Since the Writ Petition is pending from the year 2004, this Court is not inclined to keep the matter pending any further, which act would cause serious prejudice to the parties.

¶14

It is needless to point out that in case the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.498 of 1998 has been over-ruled or modified subsequently in the appeal, if any, the parties to the suit will be bound by the terms of such judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. As such, since the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has already been dealt with and decided by the Civil Court, this Court does not intend to pass any orders. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶16

//True copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

pvs

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶22

The Sub-Collector, Pollachi.

¶23

The Tahsildhar Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.KP.Jotheeswaran, Advocate SR.No.15631

¶25

WP. No.27066 of 2004

¶26

KS(CO)
GMY(23/03/2019)

¶27

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

M.Aruchamy Gounder v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Aruchamy Gounder 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

A.Ramalakshmi Vs the Joint Commissioner of

N.Rajendran Vs the Management of Tamilnadu

D.Vedarathinam Vs Director of Elementary

P.Raman Vs Govt.of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

A.Perumal Vs the Chairman, Tamilnadu

V.S. Subbaiyah, Vs the Dy. Commissioner of Police