Disposed

M.Michael v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Madras HC3 Jun 2021WP/12175/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 seeking Mandamus to stop state respondents from taking possession of Government land due to alleged civil decree obtained via misrepresentation. Court held remedy lies in civil court to annul decree, disposed petition without merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without going into merits; petitioner free to institute appropriate proceedings to annul decree.

M.Michael Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration — Land Acquisition | 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

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.12175 of 2021
M.Michael ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The Commissioner of Land
Administration Ezhilagam Chennai.
2 The Inspector of General of Registration
Santhome Chennai.
3 The District Collector
Theni District.
4 The Tahsildar
Bodinayakanur Theni District.
5 Paraman
6 Veerammal
7 Irulayammal ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from taking possession of the premises of the Government Land in Survey No.344/1 an extent of 0.45 cents and comprised in New Survey No.666/5 at Uppukottai Village, Bodinayakkanur , Theni District till the enquiry conducted by the 4th respondent as per the order passed in W.P.9380 of 2019 by this Court.

¶9

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

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.R.Karunagaran For respondent : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram,

¶11

: Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Advocate-General, Assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar, Counsel for State, for respondents 1 to 4

¶12

ORDER
(Made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioner says that the private respondents have
obtained a decree from Civil Court behind the back of the
petitioner by misrepresenting facts. According to the
petitioner, by virtue of such decree, the private respondents
have encroached on Government land.
2. There is a direct inter-se dispute between the petitioner
and the private respondents. In any event, since a decree has
been passed by a Civil Court, the remedy of the petitioner would
be to have the decree set aside in accordance with law.
3. W.P.No.12175 of 2021 is disposed of without going into
the merits of the matter and by leaving the petitioner free to
institute appropriate proceedings for having the decree
annulled. There will be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.12962 of
2021 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tar
To
1 The Commissioner of Land
Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai.
2 The Inspector of General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.

¶13

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

¶14

3 The District Collector, Theni District.

¶15

4 The Tahsildar, Bodinayakanur, Theni District.

¶16

+1cc to Mr.R.Karunagaran, Advocate Sr.27381

¶17

+1cc to the Government pleader Sr.27406

¶18

W.P.No.12175 of 2021
rsv[co]
srg 12/07/2021

¶19

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

M.Michael v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Michael v. The Commissioner of Land Administration

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.S.Masthan Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to

S.Sennappan Vs The District Collector

M.Sundararaj Vs The state of Tamil Nadu

V.Deivam Vs The District Collector

A. Veronica Mary Vs Union of India

B.Ramkumar Adityan Vs Chief Secretary