Dismissed

Adaikkalaraj v. Te District Collector

Madras HC16 Dec 2021WP(MD)/14966/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Common Order addressed two writ petitions challenging an eviction notice issued for a structure on disputed land classified as Government poromboke. The Court vacated an interim stay, dismissed the petition claiming squatters rights, and directed authorities to proceed with eviction after a personal hearing within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay vacated; W.P(MD)No.14966 dismissed; Respondents directed to proceed with eviction after personal hearing within six weeks.

Adaikkalaraj Vs Te District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.14966 and 13860 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.12.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.14966 and 13860 of 2020

¶7

and WMP(MD)No.12597 of 2020

¶8

W.P(MD)No.14966 of 2020 Adaikkalaraj

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

1. The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶12

1. The Sub Collector, Sriranagam, Trichy District.

¶13

1. Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk,Trichy District.

¶14

1. The Rural Development Officer Vaiyyampatti Panchayat Union, Manapparai Taluk,Trichy District.

¶15

1. The Panchayat President, V.Periyampatti Village Panchayat, Vaiyyampatti Panchayat Union, Manapparai Taluk,Trichy District.

¶16

John Chandirasekar ... Respondents

¶17

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the 5^th respondent in so far as directing the petitioner to remove the structure in S.No.324/1, Mathalaipatti Village, V.Periyampatti Village, VaiyampattiPanchayat Union, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District and set aside the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Maheswaran For R1 to R4 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvan For R6 : Mr.A.Thiagarajan

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1/4

¶20

W.P(MD)Nos.14966 and 13860 of 2020

¶21

W.P(MD)No.13860 of 2020 S.John Chandrasekar

¶22

... Petitioner

¶23

vs.

¶24

The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶25

The Sub Collector, Srirangam, Trichy District. 3) The Tahsildar, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. 4) The President, V.Periyapatti Panchayat, Vaiampatti Panchayat Union, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. 5) Adaikalaraj 6) Sundaram ... Respondents

¶26

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to remove the encroachment in S.F.No.324/1 of V.Periyapatti Village, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District made by the respondents No.5 & 6.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.AN.Ramanathan For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.C.M.Marichelliah Prabhu

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶30

W.P(MD)No.14966 of 2020 is filed by one Adaikkalaraj, challenging the eviction notice issued by the 5^th respondent, in which, the petitioner has obtained an order of interim stay. The petitioner has only alleged that the place in question has been used and occupied by him and his father, for storing cow dung and manure for the purpose of agriculture and they have been in possession for more than 4 decades.

¶31

While so, there is yet another writ petition filed in W.P (MD)No.13860 of 2020, by one John Chandrasekar, seeking a direction to remove the encroachment in Survey No.324/1 of Periyapatti Village. The eviction notice was issued to the said Adaikkalaraj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ only pursuant to that writ petition, as he had encroached the

¶32

Page 2/4

¶33

W.P(MD)Nos.14966 and 13860 of 2020

¶34

pathway leading to the said John Chandrasekar's house. In view of the interim stay granted by this Court, the authorities are unable to take any action.

¶35

The only claim of the petitioner / Adaikkalaraj is that the question of encroachment does not arise, as the land in question is a grama natham and the Government has got no right to evict them. The 'A' Register would reveal that Survey No.324 is a Government poromboke, but the petitioner has sought for the relief in respect of Survey No.324/1 of Mathalaipatti Village, V.Periyampatti Village, for which, no classification has been found in the 'A' Register. The sub division also has not been shown in the 'A' Register. In such circumstances, the 5^th respondent has rightly issued the notice calling upon him to evict.

¶36

So, when the petitioner / Adaikkalaraj has got no right or title over the property, simply by claiming it to be a natham land, without filing any document in support of the claim, he is not entitled to squat on the property, particularly, when he is obstructing the pathway of the 6^th respondent / John Chandirasekar. In the UDR also, Survey No.324/1 is classified as Government poromboke and it is a ''fhypej;jk; -njnuhLk; ghij''. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner / Adaikkalaraj can claim any right over the same.

¶37

In the light of the above discussion, the stay granted already is vacated and W.P(MD)No.14966 of 2020 is dismissed.

¶38

Sofaras W.P(MD)No.13860 of 2020 is concerned, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, stating that in view of the stay obtained by the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.14966 of 2020, though steps have been taken by issuing eviction notice, they could not proceed further, in view of the interim stay granted by this Court. Now, the interim stay is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed. Therefore, the official respondents are directed to proceed with the eviction notice, conduct an enquiry and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.14966 of 2020, pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the status-quo as on today to be maintained.

¶39

In fine, W.P(MD)No.14966 of 2020 is dismissed as indicated above and W.P(MD)No.13860 of 2020 is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

// True Copy //

¶41

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

bala

¶43

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

¶44

Page 3/4

¶45

W.P(MD)Nos.14966 and 13860 of 2020

¶46

¶47

The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. 2) The Sub Collector, Sriranagam, Trichy District. 3) Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. 4) The Rural Development Officer Vaiyyampatti Panchayat Union, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. 5)The President, V.Periyapatti Panchayat, Vaiampatti Panchayat Union, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District. +1CC to SPL.GP(SR.No.39489)

¶48

W.P(MD)Nos.14966 and 13860 of 2020 DATED : 16.12.2021

¶49

MGJ(24.01.2022) 4P 7C

¶50

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

¶51

Page 4/4

Adaikkalaraj v. Te District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adaikkalaraj v. Te 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

M/S. Sri Amman Educational and Charitable Trust Vs M/S. Canara Bank

The Director of School Education Vs T.Baskaran

Mr.v.Sathish Kumar Vs the Chief Manager

Lionel Antony Raj.M Vs State of Tamilnadu

K.Ramesh, Vs Ravichandran

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer