Remanded

Dhanalakshmi v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jun 2021WP(MD)/10417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of five writ petitions challenging an encroachment eviction notice. The Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioners' objections dated 20.05.2021 and affording a reasonable opportunity before taking action. The status quo was maintained pending this consideration.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider objections dated 20.05.2021, afford reasonable opportunity, and continue status quo pending such consideration.

Dhanalakshmi Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]Nos.10417, 10419, 10420, 10423 and 10424 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.06.2021

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶5

W.P.[MD]Nos.10417, 10419, 10420, 10423 and 10424 of 2021 and W.M.P.[MD]No.8103 of 2021

¶6

Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner in WP(MD).No.10417 of 2021 Kulandai, ... Petitioner(s) in WP(MD). 10419/ 2021 Anthoniammal ... Petitioner(s) in WP(MD). 10420/ 2021 Kristhina Jenifer ... Petitioner(s) in WP(MD). 10423/ 2021 Nirmala ... Petitioner(s) in WP(MD). 10424/ 2021

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶9

2.The Thasildar, Office of the Thasildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶10

3.The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. ... Respondents in all WP's

¶11

COMMON P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with impugned encroachment eviction notice in Na.Ka.No.887/2020/Aa6, dated 11.05.2021 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to provide patta in petitioner's name in Dindigul District, Vedasandur Taluk, Malvarpatti Village Survey No.198 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 20.05.2021 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P.[MD]Nos.10417, 10419, 10420, 10423 and 10424 of 2021

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajaselvan For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran Standing Counsel for Government [In all Writ Petitions]

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

¶18

[Common Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ] With the consent on either side, these Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.R.Rajaselvan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents.

¶20

3.The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the notice issued by the respondent dated 11.05.2021, directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments. The petitioners have sent their objections dated 20.05.2021 by speed post. The petitioners in their objections have stated that similarly placed persons have been granted patta under the one time scheme and one Lourdhusamy, who had filed W.P.[MD]No.5478 of 2020, alleging that the petitioners are encroachers is also one of the beneficiaries of the free patta scheme, which was a one time measure.

¶21

4.In any event, the petitioners have given their objections. Therefore, without considering the same, the authorities should not vacate them summarily. Even in the earlier litigation, a direction was issued only to consider the representation in accordance with law after putting the alleged encroachers on notice and there was no positive direction issued for demolition or eviction. Therefore, the authorities should consider the objections dated 20.05.2021 and after affording reasonable opportunity, should consider the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Until then, the status quo which is prevailing shall be continued.

¶22

5.With the above observation, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

// True Copy //

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P.[MD]Nos.10417, 10419, 10420, 10423 and 10424 of 2021

¶29

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2.The Thasildar, Office of the Thasildar, Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District. 3.The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶31

W.P.[MD]Nos.10417, 10419, 10420,

¶32

10423 and 10424 of 2021 22.06.2021

¶33

KB(01.07.2021) 3P 4C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

Dhanalakshmi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi 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

Manikandan.M Vs the District Collector

The Management Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai Division II Limited), Vs v.Manickam

T.Lakshmanan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Subramanian Vs the Addl.Registrar General

Kremmer Sandegren Foundation Pattukottai Vs The Inspector General of Registration

M/S. Asl Represented by Its Vs the Branch Manager