Disposed

V.Deivam v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Jun 2021WP/12172/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner complained of an alleged encroachment by the ninth respondent on a road in Natham Survey No.873. The learned counsel for the Government accepted notice and submitted that the representation would be considered by the sixth respondent. Without going into the merits of the matter, the court directed the sixth respon

What did the court decide?

The sixth respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 05.10.2020 of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petition

V.Deivam Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.06.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.12172 of 2021

¶7

V.Deivam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector
The District Collector Office
Krishnagiri.
2. The Block Development Officer
The District Collector Office
Kaveripatinam
Krishnagiri.
3. Inspector General of Registration
Office of the DIG Registration
Krishnagiri District.
4. The District Registrar
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District.
5. The Sub Registrar
Kaveripattinam
Krishnagiri District.
6. The Tahsildar
Krishnagiri Taluk Office
Krishnagiri District.
7. The Village Administrative Officer
Paiyur
Krishnagiri Taluk and District.
8. Superintendent of Police
District Crime Branch
Office of the Superintendent of Police
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri.

¶8

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

¶9

9. Chinnasamy .. Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the sixth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.10.2020 to remove the illegal encroachment by the ninth respondent in Natham Survey No.873, Re-survey No.1041/10, admeasuring up to 0.09.78 sq.ft., Bommasamuthram Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District within a stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu
For Respondent : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.P.Muthukumar
Counsel for State
for respondents 1 to 8
ORDER
(Made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J)

¶12

The petitioner complains of an alleged encroachment of Natham Survey No.873, Re-survey No.1041/10 at Bommasamuthram Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶13

The petitioner asserts that the Government had laid a concrete road in the village and that such road is being put to use by the residents of the village for more than 20 years. It is further stated that the ninth respondent has encroached upon the road and is constructing a building thereon. In spite of the petitioner making a representation on 05.10.2020 to remove such illegal encroachment, no action has been taken thereon.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Government, Mr.P.Muthukumar, accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 8 and submits that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and disposed of by the sixth respondent within a reasonable time frame.

¶15

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the sixth respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 05.10.2020 of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the ninth respondent. Such reasoned order shall

¶16

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

¶17

be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

In view of the fact that the merits of the matter have not been gone into and because the sixth respondent has been directed to hear the ninth respondent before passing the order, the writ petition is disposed of without notice to the ninth respondent.

¶19

W.P.No.12172 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpl
To
1. The District Collector
The District Collector Office
Krishnagiri.
2. The Block Development Officer
The District Collector Office
Kaveripatinam
Krishnagiri.
3. Inspector General of Registration
Office of the DIG Registration
Krishnagiri District.
4. The District Registrar
Krishnagiri
Krishnagiri District.
5. The Sub Registrar
Kaveripattinam
Krishnagiri District.
6. The Tahsildar
Krishnagiri Taluk Office
Krishnagiri District.
7. The Village Administrative Officer
Paiyur
Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

¶21

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

¶22

Superintendent of Police District Crime Branch Office of the Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶23

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.27405

¶24

W.P.No.12172 of 2021

¶25

RSV(CO) CB(13/07/2021)

¶26

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

V.Deivam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Deivam 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

K.S.Masthan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to

S.Sennappan Vs The District Collector

M.Sundararaj Vs The state of Tamil Nadu

M.Michael Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration

A. Veronica Mary Vs Union of India

B.Ramkumar Adityan Vs Chief Secretary