Petitioner challenged interference with peaceful possession of property. Court directed first respondent to act on alleged encroachment only by following due process of law. Petition disposed accordingly.
1st respondent directed to take action against petitioner for alleged encroachment only by following due process of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.1809 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.1996 of 2019
S.P.L.Rajakumar ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Commissioner Chinglepet Municipality, Kanchipuram.
2.The District Collector, Kanchipuram.
3.The Tasildhar, Chinglepet Taluk, Kanchipuram. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner with respect to Plot No. 84 comprised in (old survey no.1417/part, new Survey No.1417/1B1A1A1A1A), in Survey No.1417/61B, Srinath, JCK Nagar, Chinglepet.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For R2 and R3 : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader For R1 : Mr.P.Srinivas
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner with respect to Plot No. 84 comprised in (old survey no.1417/part, new Survey No.1417/1B1A1A1A1A), in Survey No.1417/61B, Srinath, JCK Nagar, Chinglepet.
Srinath, JCK Nagar, Chinglepet owned by the petitioner by way of sale deed dated 10.03.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained patta and mutated revenue records in his name. Out of 3990 sq.ft., the petitioner sold a portion of the property in favour of the third party on 03.08.2005 and the remaining extent of the property is with the petitioner. While being so, the 1st respondent without following any due process of law, marked a portion of land as the petitioner encroached the same. According to the petitioner, no notice was served under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 before taking any action as against the petitioner.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dm
To
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.65119
+1cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.65174
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.65812
W.P.No.1809 of 2019
PL(CO) CT 04/01/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should direct respondent to follow due process of law before taking action for alleged encroachment.
Whether notice under Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was necessary before marking land as encroached.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.P.L.Rajakumar
The Commissioner Chinglepet Municipality, Kanchipuram
The District Collector, Kanchipuram
The Tasildhar, Chinglepet Taluk, Kanchipuram
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
