Dismissed

Mr.a.Elangovan v. Revenue Inspector

Madras HC25 Jul 2019WP/29505/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two premature writ petitions challenging a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, holding that until an order is passed under Section 6, the remedy of appeal under Section 10 lies, rendering the writ premature.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act are dismissed as premature.

Mr.a.Elangovan Vs Revenue Inspector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.07.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.VIJAYA K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶7

W.P.Nos.29505 & 29507 of 2007 and

¶8

M.P.W.M.P.No.738 of 2018

¶9

A.Elangovan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29505/2007 S.Pitchaiammal .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29507/2007

¶10

Vs. 1.The Revenue Inspector, Alandur Firka, Alandur, Tambaram Taluk, Chennai. 2.The Village Administrative Officer, 21, Z Pallavam – II, Chennai – 600 043. .. Respondents in both W.Ps

¶11

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writs of certiorari to call for the records from the respondents 1 & 2 relating to the notice No.Nil dated 23.08.2007 issued by them under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner (in both W.Ps) : Mr.V.Venkatasamy

¶13

For Respondents (in both W.Ps): Mr.S.Kamalesh Kannan

¶14

Government Advocate

¶15

(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY M.DURAISWAMY, J.)

¶16

Since the issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are identical, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

¶17

2.The petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions challenging the notice dated 23.08.2007 issued by the 1 st respondent under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

¶18

3.Since the 1 st respondent has only issued a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and that no order has been passed under Section 6 of the Act, the Writ

¶19

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

¶20

Petitions filed by the petitioners are premature. The petitioners were called upon to give their reply to the notice issued under Section 7. Only if an order is passed under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioners can file an appeal under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

¶21

4.In such view of the matter, the Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Revenue Inspector,
Alandur Firka, Alandur, Tambaram Taluk,
Chennai.
2.The Village Administrative Officer,
21, Z Pallavam – II,
Chennai – 600 043.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 65022.
W.P.Nos.29505 & 29507 of 2007 and
W.M.P.No.738 of 2018
VSNII(CO)
SP(16/08/2019)

¶24

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

Mr.a.Elangovan v. Revenue Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.a.Elangovan v. Revenue Inspector

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

K.Ramalingam Vs State of Tamilnadu

Annai Theresa Nalindhor Vs The Commissioner

K.Sait Vs The District Collector

A.S.Jeevanandan Vs the Member Secretary

Mr.R. Jayaraj Vs Union of India Rep. by the

G.Ramesh Babu, Vs the Chairman