Disposed

C.Venkatapathy v. The Secretary

Madras HC20 Apr 2021WP/9626/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court ordered respondents to consider a fresh representation and dispose of the petition via a reasoned order after providing opportunity to parties within eight weeks, without examining merits due to uncertainty on land ownership.

What did the court decide?

Permission to carry fresh representation; direction to all respondents to consider same and pass reasoned order within eight weeks.

C.Venkatapathy Vs The Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.9626 of 2021

¶8

C.Venkatapathy .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Ranipettai District,
Ranipettai – 632 401.
3.Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union Office,
Arcot, Ranipettai District.
4.Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Vellore.
5.Thasildar,
Arcot Taluk,
Ranipettai District 632 503. .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 3 to 5 to remove the encroachments at survey no.660 in Sattur Village, No.85, Arcot Taluk, North Arcot District, within a stipulated period.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan State Government Pleader for RR 1, 2, 3 and 5

¶11

: Mr.M.Karthikeyan Spl. G.P. For R-4

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Made by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

¶15

The petitioner complains of the alleged encroachment of a waterbody in S.No.660 in Sattur Village, Arcot Taluk, North Arcot District.

¶16

It is stated by the petitioner that S.No.660 at Sattur Village is classified as a pond and as Government Poramboke in the re-settlement register of the Revenue Department. The said pond is said to serve the purpose of recharging the water table in the locality concerned. The writ petitioner asserts that the pond is adjacent to patta lands and, therefore, has been encroached upon by private persons. Upon submitting a representation to the fifth respondent, action was initiated by addressing a communication on 16.12.2020 to the fourth respondent, on the erroneous basis that the land belongs to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department, but the encroachments have not been removed till date.

¶17

The learned State Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and states that in view of the uncertainty as to whether the land belongs to the Government or the HR & CE Department, all the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and respond to the same.

¶18

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without examining the merits of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to carry a fresh representation to all the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the said respondents are directed to consider such representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity to all parties affected thereby, including the alleged encroachers. Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶19

costs.

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

sra

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Ranipettai District,
Ranipettai – 632 401.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union Office,
Arcot, Ranipettai District.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Vellore.
5.The Thasildar,
Arcot Taluk,
Ranipettai District 632 503.
+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader SR.24037, 24433
+ 1 cc to Mr. T. Saravanan, Advocate Sr.23810
W.P.No.9626 of 2021
UM(CO)
EU 6/5/2021

¶26

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

C.Venkatapathy v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Venkatapathy v. The Secretary

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

Meenakshi Balasubramanian Vs The Union of India

Moham Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Naidu Hall Family Store

Moham Retail Private Ltd. Vs Naidu Hall Family Store

T.Vellaiyan Vs The Chief Judicial Magistrate

Fisherman Care Vs The Government of India

S.K.Radhakrishnan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu