Disposed

C.R.Asai Murugan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Sept 2021WP(MD)/3338/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged illegal gravel sand quarrying on adjacent lands by private respondents. The Madurai Bench directed the District Collector to conduct a limited enquiry, issue notices, and decide the representation on merits within twelve weeks. No final order on the merits was passed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to conduct limited enquiry, issue notice to parties, and decide representation on merits within 12 weeks.

C.R.Asai Murugan, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3338 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.09.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3338 of 2019 and WM.P(MD).No.2620 of 2019

¶7

C.R.Asai Murugan ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti,

¶11

Madurai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar,

¶13

Usilampatti Taluk Office, Madurai District.

¶14

4.N.Ganesan 5.David Rajendran

¶15

6.Karuppathevar

¶16

7.Nammakodi

¶17

8.Thangaraj ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restrain the Respondents 4 to 8 herein from in any manner removing the gravel sand illegally from the landed properties comprised in Survey Nos.119/3A, 119/3B, 120/8, 140/14, 141/10, 141/2, 141/3, 141/4 and 141/5 situated at Nakkalapatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance For Respondents : Mr.D.Ghandiraj

¶20

Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.V.P.Rajan for R5 Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan for R6 Mr.M.Vivek Kumar

¶21

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

¶22

1/4

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.3338 of 2019

for R7

No appearance for R4

ORDER

Prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to restrain the Respondents 4 to 8 herein, from in any manner removing the gravel sand illegally from the landed properties comprised in Survey Nos.119/3A, 119/3B, 120/8, 140/14, 141/10, 141/2, 141/3, 141/4 and 141/5 situtated at Nakkalapatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶28

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having agricultural lands in Survey Nos.119/2A, 120/7, 141/2B, 141/2B1C, 141/2B1D and 141/5 at Nakkalapatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶29

3 .It is a further case of the petitioner that the private respondents herein are having lands at various survey numbers in S.Nos.119/2A, 119/3A, 119/3B, 120/7, 120/8, 141/2B 1C, 141/2B 1D, 140/14, 141/10, 141/2, 141/3, 141/4 and 141/5.

¶30

4 .It is in this context, the further case of the petitioner is that the private respondents are indulging in illegal quarrying by taking gravel sand from the said lands mentioned in the aforesaid Survey numbers belonged to the private respondents, which are just adjacent to the land belonged to the petitioner, thereby, the petitioner is getting affected, therefore, in order to prevent the private respondents from doing the alleged illegal quarrying, the petitioner had given a representation to the respondents on 07.02.2019, however, since the same is not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶31

5 .Heard Mr.J.Lawrence, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who having stated the aforesaid, would seek indulgence of this Court to issue a direction to the respondents, especially, the first respondent, to decide the representation of the petitioner, on merits, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶32

6 .Heard Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, who would submit that, if at all, any representation has been submitted by the petitioner as claimed by him, on 07.02.2019, a copy of the same can be forwarded to the first respondent, who, on receipt of the same, would conduct a limited enquiry, as to verify the veracity of the complaint made by the petitioner in the said representation with regard to the alleged illegal quarrying on the part of the private respondents, ofcourse, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

2/4

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.3338 of 2019

¶35

by giving an opportunity or notice to both the petitioner and the private respondents, and thereafter, decide the same and dispose the said representation within a time frame on merits, that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶36

7 .Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of the documents referred to above including the representation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:

¶37

“that there shall be a direction to the first respondent/District Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.02.2019, and decide the same after conducting a limited enquiry, as to the veracity of the complaint made by the petitioner in the said representation, by giving notice separately to both the petitioner as well as the private respondents, and thereafter, final order shall be passed by disposing the said representation of the petitioner dated 07.02.2019. The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the first respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶38

8 .It is made clear that the petitioner shall give a copy of the representation, dated 07.02.2019, along with a copy of this order, and forward the same to the first respondent/District Collector, Trichirappalli, and on receipt of the same, the first respondent shall do the needful as indicated above, within the time stipulated.

¶39

9. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

Assistant Registrar (AD-II)

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶43

PJL

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

3/4

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.3338 of 2019

¶48

¶49

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Usilampatti Taluk Office, Madurai District. +1 CC to M/s.J.LAWRANCE, Advocate ( SR-28282[F] dated 06/09/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-28356[F] dated 07/09/2021 )

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.3338 of 2019 06.09.2021

¶51

MMS(CO) KB(25.10.2021) 4P 6C

¶52

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

¶53

4/4

C.R.Asai Murugan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Asai Murugan, 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

S.Padmanabhan Vs Samayamoorthy

TVL.MH87 Sithayankottai Hwcps Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central GST and Excise

Tvl. Dra SP Vm Joint Venture Vs the Additional/Joint/Deputy/

Sudalimuthu Vs the Regional Transport Officer

J K Engineering and Electro Platers Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)- II

Tvl. Rahul Agencies Vs the State Tax Officer