Disposed

Singan.a v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Aug 2021WP(MD)/13786/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court construed an eviction order under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act as a valid show-cause notice to protect petitioners from immediate possession disturbance, directing the authority to conduct a hearing before passing a final order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order construed as show-cause notice; petitioners directed to reply within 7 days; final hearing order to be passed within three weeks; possession not to be disturbed pending final order.

Singan.a Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.13786 to 13789 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.08.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.(MD)Nos.13786 to 13789 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10759, 10760, 10762 and 10761 of 2021

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.13786 of 2021:

¶8

A.Singan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶10

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer(Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Peraiyur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned eviction notice in Ku.No.1/2021/E.Va.A, dated 16.07.2021, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶12

W.P.(MD)No.13787 of 2021:

¶13

S.Desinkuraja ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District. 2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer(Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Peraiyur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶14

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P.(MD)Nos.13786 to 13789 of 2021

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.13788 of 2021:

¶18

A.Kuruvuthai ... Petitioner Vs.

¶19

1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶20

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer(Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Peraiyur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶21

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.13789 of 2021:

¶23

K.Chinnasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai,

¶24

Madurai District.

¶25

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer(Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Peraiyur, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶26

¶27

For Petitioner in all petitions : Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondents in all petitions : Mr.B.Saravanan Government Advocate

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN,J. )

¶30

All the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the second respondent, by which, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/4

¶32

W.P.(MD)Nos.13786 to 13789 of 2021

¶33

petitioners were directed to remove the encroachment alleged to have been made in S.No.112/3, to an extent of 0.30.5 sq.meter respectively.

¶34

Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 16.07.2021, under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, without giving a show cause notice as contemplated under the said provision.

¶35

3.On a reading of the impugned order, dated 16.07.2021, it is clear that the third respondent had called upon the petitioners to remove the encroachment within a period of fifteen (15) days. As per Section 28(2)(ii) of the Act, the authority should give 7 days show cause notice calling upon the encroacher to give his reply.In the case on hand, the second respondent has not given any such show cause notice as contemplated under the Act.

¶36

4.Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, taking notice for the respondents, submitted that the impugned order, dated 16.07.2021 itself may be considered as a show cause notice as contemplated under the Act and the petitioners may be directed to give their reply within a period of 7 days.

¶37

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also agreed to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and submitted that the petitioners would give their reply within 7 days to the impugned order, dated 16.07.2021.

¶38

6.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the impugned order, dated 16.07.2021, shall be construed as a show cause notice as contemplated under Section 28(2) (ii) of the Act and the petitioners are directed to give their reply within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of reply from the petitioners. Till the date of passing of final order, the petitioners' possession shall not be disturbed.

¶39

7.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶40

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

W.P.(MD)Nos.13786 to 13789 of 2021

¶44

SSL

¶45

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.

¶46

¶47

1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶48

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer(Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Peraiyur, Madurai District.

¶49

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-25882[F] dated 11/08/2021 )

¶50

+4 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-25935[F] dated 11/08/2021 )

¶51

W.P.(MD)Nos.13786 to 13789 of 2021

10.08.2021

PK(CO)

KB(17.08.2021) 4P 8C

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

¶56

4/4

Singan.a v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singan.a 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

Prabhu Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Saravanan Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu

Shiva Vr Vs the Health Secretary

The Divisional Engineer/Central Vs the District Collector

Subbiah.v Vs the District Collector

Murugan M Vs the District Collector