Partly allowed

P.Parthiban v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Sept 2021WP/19025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner complained that the Tahsildar failed to remove encroachers from land despite a Sub Collector's recommendation. The Court directed the Tahsildar to take immediate steps to remove encroachers and issue notice to them before dismissing the petition as a separate order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to remove encroachers and issue notice; petition dismissed as a separate order.

P.Parthiban Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.No.19025 of 2021

¶7

P.Parthiban .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector Villupuram District – 605 602.

¶9

2.The Sub Collector Tindivanam Villupuram District – 604 001. 3.Revenue Tahsildar Tindivanam Taluk Villupuram District – 604 001.

¶10

4.Kathirvel .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action as directed by the 2^nd respondent vide his communication dated 30.07.2021 and to remove the encroachments in the Channel so as to drain the rain water to a tributary running through Konerikuppam village.

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr.Sesubalan Raja For the Respondents 1-3 : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶15

The petitioner complains of the third respondent Tahsildar failing to take action to remove encroachers from Survey No.62 (though the petitioner has mentioned survey number 58, it is submitted on behalf of the official respondents that the appropriate survey number is 62 and not 58) at Konerikuppam village despite the recommendation of the second respondent Sub Collector of Tindivanam in Villupuram District.

¶16

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

¶17

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and submits that immediate appropriate action is being taken to remove the fourth respondent encroacher.

¶18

Accordingly, W.P.No.19025 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the third respondent Tahsildar of Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram to take immediate appropriate steps in accordance with law to ensure that the encroachers are removed from the relevant land.

¶19

The Tahsildar will issue notice to the perceived encroachers, including the fourth respondent herein. In view of such order, no previous notice is served on the fourth respondent.

¶20

W.P.No.19025 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

sra/kst

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Villupuram District – 605 602.

¶28

2.The Sub Collector, Tindivanam, Villupuram District – 604 001.

¶29

3.Revenue Tahsildar, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District – 604 001.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja, Advocate, S.R.No.46024

¶31

W.P.No.19025 of 2021

¶32

SVI(CO) GN(17/09/2021)

¶33

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

P.Parthiban v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Parthiban 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.Selvaraj Vs The Director of Rural Development and

R.Swarnalatha Vs The Registrar General

C.E.Thanigai Mani Vs Prabhakaran IAS

M.Karpagam Vs Commissionerate for the Welfare of Differently Abled

Jwalia It Solution Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Authorised officer

G.Ramachandran Vs The District Collector