Allowed

A.Fairoze Sharef v. The District collector

Madras HC8 Dec 2020WP/21713/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, evicted from land by respondents, filed a writ petition seeking a time-bound disposal of his representation for land assignment. The Court directed the Tahsildar to pass orders on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the merits of the representation dated 05.06.2017 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

A.Fairoze Sharef Vs The District collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21713 of 2017

¶6

A.Fairoze Sharef ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Commissioner,
Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to dispose of the petitioner representation dated 05.06.2017
within a fixed time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondents : Ms.A.Madhumathi,
Special Government Pleader (R1 &
R2)
Mr.D.Suriya Narayanan (R3)
O R D E R

¶7

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2017 within a time frame.

¶8

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was evicted from the land in dispute and the house was also demolished by the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner has given a representation on 05.06.2017 seeking for assignment of the land, which was taken over by the 3^rd respondent.

¶9

3.Mr.M.Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 05.06.2017 has not yet been considered by the 2^nd respondent.

¶10

4.Ms.A.Madhumathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the

¶11

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

¶12

petitioner has no right to remain in possession of the property and therefore, the 3^rd respondent has rightly evicted him from he property in dispute and also demolished the building.

¶13

5.Mr.D.Suriya Narayanan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent also submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to remain in possession of the property in dispute.

¶14

6.In any event, since the petitioner has given a representation on 05.06.2017, the respondents could have passed an order and disposed of the same in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, I direct the 2^nd respondent to pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

7.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
va
To
1.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
2.The Tahsildar,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Commissioner,
Krishnagiri Municipality,
Krishnagiri.
+1cc to Mr. D. Suriyan Narayanan, Advocate, SR. No.39621
+1cc to Mr. M. Selvam, Advocate, SR. No.39648
+1cc to the Government Pleader, SR. No.39801

¶16

W.P.No.21713 of 2017 SR (CO) CAA (19/12/2020)

¶17

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

A.Fairoze Sharef v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Fairoze Sharef 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Principal Commissioner of Vs Mr.Palaniappan

Govindaraj Vs The Assistant Engineer PWD

K.G.Selvaranga Mudaliyar, Vs The Inspector General of

M.Kavitha Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Panneerselvam Vs The District collector

Pakirisamy Vs The District collector