Disposed

N.Sundaresan v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Sept 2021WP/19915/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition complaining of land encroachment. Instead of deciding on merits, the court permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Tahsildar for an inquiry within four weeks, disposing of the petition on procedural grounds.

What did the court decide?

Permit to file a detailed representation to the Tahsildar within four weeks for an inquiry.

N.Sundaresan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶7

W.P.No.19915 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.21162 of 2021

¶8

N.Sundaresan ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The District Collector, Chengalpattu District.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Thiruporur Union, Chengalpattu District.

¶14

Ramakrishnan ...Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restrain the 5^th respondent from encroaching the land in survey No.1351/1F Thaiyur Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District and issue further direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the 5^th respondent for his illegal attempt of the encroachment of the above said land in survey no.1351/1F.

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajanikanth For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for RR 1 to 4

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner complains of the private respondent attempting to encroach into a government land used as a playground.

¶21

In view of the order proposed to be made, no previous notice is required to be issued to the private respondent.

¶22

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. According to him, the Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk in Chengalpattu District would be the appropriate authority to look into the petitioner's grievance.

¶23

Without going into the merits of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to carry a fresh, detailed representation to the third respondent Tahsildar within four weeks from date, whereupon the Tahsildar will conduct an inquiry, upon notice to the private respondent and others likely to be affected by any action that may be taken. The reasoned decision of the Tahsildar should be forwarded to both the petitioner and the private respondent within eight weeks of the receipt of the petitioner's representation in terms of this order. If any encroachment is discovered, immediate appropriate action should be taken in accordance with law.

¶24

W.P.No.19915 of 2021 is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.21162 of 2021 is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

sra

¶30

To:

¶31

The District Collector, Chengalpattu District.

¶32

The District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu District.

¶33

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

¶34

The Tahsildar, Thiruporur Taluk, Chengalpattu District. 4. The Block Development Officer, Thiruporur Union, Chengalpattu District. +2 CCs to Mr.S.Rajanikanth, Advocate, Sr.No. 47741.

¶35

W.P.No.19915 of 2021 LN(CO) LS(27/09/2021)

¶36

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

N.Sundaresan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sundaresan 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

B.Jagannath Vs The Commissioner

Gandhi Vs The District Collector

K. Brinda Angel Vs M/S. Koncpt

S. Muthusundaram Vs The Secretary

Madurai Farooq Ahmed Vs The Principal Commissioner

T.Sathiyamoorthy Vs The Secretary