Disposed

K.Rajaram v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Apr 2021WP/33695/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted a direction to the Tahsildar to hear both petitioners and the fifth respondent regarding encroachment on a public pathway, considering a prior order and a petition for representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioners' representation of 10.10.2015 after hearing both parties and ascertaining any amicable settlement within three months.

K.Rajaram Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 33695 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 29072 of 2016

¶6

1. K.Rajaram 2. K.Valliappan 3. Rajathi

¶7

4. S.Subramani

¶8

5. S.Janaki ... Petitioners

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶11

2. The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶12

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶13

4. Tahsildar, Taluk Office South, Kondalampatti Village, Salem-2.

¶14

5. V.Pachamuthu ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to remove the obstructions made by the fifth respondent in S.F.No.3/4B, as per the revenue records pursuant to the proceedings of the fourth respondent in X/K/ vz;/4856/15-16(B) dated 22.06.2015 passed in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 20503 of 2014 dated 11.08.2014.

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Valliappan For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan Addl. Govt. Pleader of R1 to R4 Ms.Zeenath Begum for R5

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to remove the obstructions made by the fifth respondent in S.F.No.3/4B, as per the revenue records pursuant to the proceedings of the fourth respondent in X/K/ vz;/4856/15-16(B) dated 22.06.2015 passed in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 20503 of 2014 dated 11.08.2014.

¶20

2. In respect of the pathway at S.No.3/4B in Amani Kondalamatti Village, Salem, there has been a dispute between the petitioners and the fifth respondent. In this regard, the stand of the petitioners is that, the pathway is a public pathway, meant for all. However, the stand of the fifth respondent appears to be that, it is not the public pathway, it is the exclusive land of the fifth respondent.

¶21

3. In this context, already a proceedings has been initiated before this Court by filing the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 20503 of 2014, where, the learned Judge of this Court, by order dated 11.08.2014, has passed the following order:

¶22

"4. A copy of the Award passed by the Lok Adalat is produced before me. It shows that there was a dispute with respect to the property in question and that the parties have settled the dispute. Therefore, if the property in question is a private cart-track and not Government poramboke land and if there are no other claimants, there should be no difficulty for the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners favourably.

¶23

5. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of the Lok Adalat Award and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, provided there are no rival claimants and the property in question is a private cart-track and not Government Poramboke. No costs."

¶24

4. Subsequent to the said order passed by this Court, the fourth respondent / Tahsildar, vide his proceedings dated 22.06.2015, has passed the following order:

¶25

**nkYk ; ghh ; it 3?y ; brd ; id cah ; ePjpkd ; w cj ; jutpd ; nghpYk ; . g [ yj ; jpy ghijia gjpt bra ; a [ k ; go cj ; jut [ gpwg ; gpf ; fg ; gl ; Ls ; sJ/ nkw ; fz ; l ghij bjhlh ; khf tHf ; F nryk ; 1?tJ TLjy ; chpikapay ; ePjpkd ; w cj ; jut [ OS.928- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2013?d ; goa [ k ; . nryk ; tUtha ; nfhl ; lhl ; rpah ; e/f/vz ; /4048-2014

¶26

m3 ehs ; 07/01/2015?d ; go fpua gj ; ju' ; fs ; vz ; /2567-13. 2568-13 kw ; Wk ; nryk ; tl ; l kz ; ly Jiz tl ; lhl ; rpahpd ; ep/K/89426II, ep/K/8943-6II go Tl ; L gl ; lh khWjy ; cj ; jut [ Vw ; g [ ilaJ vdt [ k ; . nryk ; nfhl ; lhl ; rpah ; cj ; jut [ gpwg ; gpj ; Js ; shh ; / kDjhuh ; fshy ; brd ; id cah ; ePjpkd ; wj ; j [ py ; jhf ; fy ; bra ; j tHf ; F vz ; / WP.20503-2014?d ; go cah ; ePjp kd ; wk ; gpwg ; gpj ; j cj ; jutpy ; kDjhuh ; fs ; gjpt [ bra ; a nfhhpa ghijia tUtha Jiw fzf ; Ffspy ; gjpt [ bra ; a [ k ; go cj ; jutplg ; gl ; Ls ; sJ/ nkw ; fz ; l Mtz' ; fspd ; mog ; gilapYk ; . cah ; ePjp kd ; w fzf ; Ffspy ; khWjy ; bra ; ag ; gLfpwJ/**

¶27

5. Despite these orders passed by this Court as well as the Revenue Authorities concerned, it is the grievance of the petitioners that, still the fifth respondent is encroaching the pathway in question, as if it belongs to the fifth respondent. Therefore, in order to remove the said occupation / encroachment on the part of the fifth respondent from the public pathway as declared by the Revenue Authorities through the order referred above, the petitioners have given a representation to the official respondents on 10.10.2015, however, the same since has not been considered, they have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

¶28

6. Reiterating the aforesaid facts, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court to issue a suitable direction to the fourth respondent to remove the encroachment of the fifth respondent.

¶29

7. However, Ms.Zeenath Begum, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, on instructions, would submit that, in fact, the issue raised in this Writ Petition, i.e., dispute between the petitioners and fifth respondent has been settled amicably out of Court and therefore, there could be no further adjudication required by this Court or by the Revenue Authorities.

¶30

8. However, the said statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent is stoutly refuted by the petitioner's concerned, who would submit that, still the fifth respondent has been in encroachment of the public pathway concerned, hence it become necessitated to pursue the petition submitted by the petitioners dated 10.10.2015 to the official respondents and therefore, he seeks suitable direction from this Court.

¶31

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶32

10. Since a direction was given earlier by this Court as referred to above, pursuant to which, the fourth respondent, who is the Authority to verify whether the pathway is a public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pathway or not and accordingly, he has made an order on

¶33

22.06.2015, where, he has ascertained that the pathway is recorded a public pathway in the revenue records. Therefore, absolutely, there could be no impediment to treat the pathway as a public pathway. If at all, the fifth respondent had been in occupation of the said pathway, which is meant for public, of course after hearing both the petitioners and the fifth respondent in this regard, the fourth respondent has to pass necessary orders.

¶34

11. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to

¶35

dispose of this Writ Petition with the following orders: "That there shall be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 10.10.2015 of course after hearing both the petitioners as well as the fifth respondent and in this regard, if any amicable settlement reached between the parties as claimed by the fifth respondent, the proof of the same can also be ascertained by the fourth respondent and accordingly, a decision can be taken on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order"

¶36

12. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶39

//True copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

vji

¶42

¶43

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶44

2. The District Revenue Officer, District Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶45

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶46

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

¶47

4. Tahsildar, Taluk Office South, Kondalampatti Village, Salem-2.

¶48

+1cc to Mr .P.Valliappan , Advocate SR.No.23807

¶49

+1cc to Ms.Zeenath Begum , Advocate SR.No.24173

¶50

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.24009

¶51

W.P. No. 33695 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 29072 of 2016

¶52

UM(CO) GMY(15/07/2021)

¶53

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

K.Rajaram v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajaram 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

Shrichand Nahar Vs Zonal Surveyor

S.Ranganayaki Vs The District Collector

R.Chellammal Vs the District Collector

S.Subramanian Vs The Collector

V.Madhavan, S/o.Venkataraman, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.N.Gowri, Vs The Thasildar