Disposed

Karuppasamy v. the Deputy General Manager(Tech)

Madras HC18 Nov 2020WP(MD)/16068/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction notice for alleged unauthorized occupation, claiming lack of hearing. Court found three-day response period insufficient, granting two weeks for representation and restraining possession disturbance pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Granted two weeks to make representation; possession not to be disturbed till receipt of reply.

Karuppasamy Vs the Deputy General Manager(Tech) — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.16068 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2020 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16068 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.13464 of 2020

¶7

Karuppasamy

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Deputy General Manager (Tech) & Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India, Plot No.3, Suriya Towers, 2^nd Floor, 1^st East Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai – 20.

¶10

2.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings no.NIL dated 23.10.2020 and quash the same.(Served to the Petitioner on 25.10.2020)

¶12

Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan, Special Government Pleader for R.2

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

( Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.)

¶16

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, dated 23.10.2020, contending that the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner, without giving him an opportunity of hearing.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.16068 of 2020

¶20

Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, learned Counsel takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the property comprised in S.No.233/492 has been acquired for the purpose of expanding the national highway and for taking possession only, the impugned notice under Section 26(2) of the Act has been issued. Even in the notice, it has been stated that if the petitioner is having any grievance, he can very well make his representation to the authority within a period of three days, but, instead of making his representation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He would further submit that a similar notice has already been issued and the same has been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.26918 of 2019, dated 18.12.2019, giving liberty to the authorities to issue a fresh notice.

¶22

As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the first respondent, the notice impugned in this writ petition is nothing but a show cause notice, calling for the petitioner to make his objections, if any, for the removal of unauthorized occupation. Therefore, the petitioner is required to make his representation, before the first respondent. In any event, this Court feels that the three days time granted by the authority is not sufficient.

¶23

In such view of the matter, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner, from today, enabling him to give his representation / reply to the first respondent and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a further period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time, the petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed.

¶24

With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerned.

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.16068 of 2020

¶31

¶32

The District Revenue Officer,

¶33

Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.G.M.LAW OFFICE, Advocate (SR-22120[F] dated 19/11/2020 )

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.16068 of 2020 18.11.2020

¶36

VB (27.11.2020) 3P 3C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

Karuppasamy v. the Deputy General Manager(Tech)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppasamy v. the Deputy General Manager(Tech)

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

V.Easwaran Vs The Commissioner

S.Murugesan Vs the Commissioner

R.Sreerengadurai Vs the District Collector

K.K.Umadevan Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Sivakami Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

V.Ramaiyan Vs the District Collector