Allowed

Elumalai v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Oct 2021WP/23178/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Court held that since an appeal against a prior Section 6 order on the same issue was pending, the new notice was illegal. The proceedings were set aside and the Collector was directed to decide the pending appeal with a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent are set aside. The third respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) is directed to pass orders on the pending appeal after affording an opportunity of pe

Elumalai Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 28.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P. No.23178 of 2021 and WMP.No.24476 of 2021

Elumalai

.. Petitioner

Versus

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thriuvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶10

The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thriuvannamalai.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thriuvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders of the fourth respondent impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/553/2017, dated 12.10.2021 issued under Section 7 Notice of Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently, direct the respondents to restrain from interfering with the petitioner peaceful possession over the petitioner property in R.S.Nos.38/8 and 38/6A1 Somasipadi Pudhur, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District 606611.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶15

For respondents: Mrs.Akila Rajendran, Government Advocate

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(The Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J)

¶19

The Writ Petition is heard through video conferencing.

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.M.Guruprasad would state that in respect of the same issue, the fourth respondent had already issued a notice and passed order under Section 6 of the Act on 26.07.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent on 26.08.2019. While the appeal is pending, the fourth respondent has again issued a notice under Section 7 of the Act.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents Mrs.Akila Rajendran on instruction would state that the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 26.08.2019 is still pending before the third respondent and he is ready to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

In the case on hand, indisputably in respect of the same issue a final order under Section 6 of the Act was made, against which, an appeal was preferred, however, it is not yet disposed of. It appears that without noticing these facts, the impugned notice has been issued. So, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Writ Petition.

¶24

In that view, the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent is set aside. Considering the facts and submissions of the learned counsels, the third respondent is directed to pass orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 26.08.2019 in accordance with law after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, the respondents shall not precipitate the issue.

¶25

With the above observation and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC)

¶28

//True copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

pvs

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Thriuvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶34

The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thriuvannamalai.

¶35

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thriuvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.

¶36

The Tahsildar, Kilpennathur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate SR.No.55925 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.56679

¶38

W.P. No.23178 of 2021

¶39

SSI(CO) GMY(03/12/2021)

¶40

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

Elumalai v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elumalai 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

S. Rajendran Vs S. Rajendran

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs S.Karpagam

G.Senthilkumar Vs Union of India

M/s. T.M.Radhakrishna Chetty and Co. Vs The Secretary to the Government

S.Shivakumar Vs S.Srividhya

Prasanna Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu