Disposed

B.Ravikumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Apr 2021WP/10010/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to remove an alleged encroachment on a waterbody within a Panchayat. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider a fresh representation and dispose of it via a reasoned order after hearing affected parties, without examining the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to carry a fresh representation; second respondent directed to consider it and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks after hearing the third respondent.

B.Ravikumar Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.04.2021

¶2

CORAM :

¶3

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

AND

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.10010 of 2021

¶7

B.Ravikumar .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Tashildar,
Cheyyar Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.Sankar Kalayimani .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to remove the encroachment made by the third respondent in survey No.135, Soundariyapuram Panchayat, Anakavoor Union, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2021.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan State Government Pleader for RR 1 and 2

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner complains of encroachment of S.No.135,Soundariyapuram Panchayat, Anakavoor Union, CheyyarTaluk, Thiruvannamalai District, by the third respondent.

¶12

It is asserted by the petitioner that S.No.135 is a waterbody, which is a source for irrigation activities of the adjoining agricultural lands, and this waterbody has been encroached upon by the third respondent by laying a road for transporting stones. The writ petitioner, who is the President

¶13

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

¶14

of Soundariyapuram Panchayat, states that he submitted a representation to the District Collector on 11.02.2021 to remove the alleged encroachment by the third respondent, but no action has been taken thereon by either the first respondent or the second respondent.

¶15

Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned State Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and submits that the petitioner is entitled to initiate action under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 in his capacity as President of the relevant Panchayat. In addition, he states that the Tahsildar may be directed to consider the representation and provide necessary assistance to the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, without examining the merits of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to carry a fresh representation to the second respondent herein. Such representation shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the second respondent is directed to consider such representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof, after providing a reasonable opportunity to all affected parties, including the third respondent herein.

¶17

On account of the fact that the merits of the matter have not been examined and considering the fact that the third respondent would be heard before orders are passed, the writ petition is being disposed of without notice to the third respondent. It is made clear that nothing in the order shall preclude the petitioner from exercising power as President of the relevant Panchayat under the applicable law as regards the subject matter of this petition.

¶18

W.P.No.10010 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar sra To

¶21

1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶22

2.The Tashildar,

¶23

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

¶24

Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶25

+cc to M/S.K.Murali Advocate,Sr.No.24821

¶26

W.P.No.10010 of 2021

¶27

PL(CO) baf 04/05/2021

¶28

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

B.Ravikumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ravikumar 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

M/s.Vip Grand Properties Vs M/s.Canara Bank

K.Rajendran Vs The Chief Secretary

N.S.Subramaniyan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Senthilkumar Vs Secretary to Government

Gem Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adm International Sarl and 2 Others

Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adm International Sarl and 2 Others