Disposed

Alagarsamy.S v. the Dist.Collector

Madras HC21 Jun 2021WP(MD)/6512/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought eviction of an encroacher occupying 3.5 cents of land. The court found the sale deed could not confer absolute title due to lack of title history and directed the Tahsildar to issue a notice to the encroacher to prove title. If title cannot be established, eviction shall follow within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Tahsildar to issue notice to fifth respondent to produce title documents; if title not established, eviction within 15 days.

Alagarsamy.S Vs the Dist.Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.6512 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.06.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶8

W.P.[MD]No.6512 of 2021

¶9

S.Alagarsamy : Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai.

¶14

4.Revenue Inspector, Samayanallur Firka, Samayanallur, Madurai.

¶15

5.M.Malaichamy : Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second and third respondents to evict the encroachment caused by the fifth respondent to the extent of 3.5 cents in old survey No.179/1, New Survey No.258/28 Thenur II bit village, within Samayanallur firka of Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. A.John Vincent For R-1 to R-4 : Mr. A.K.Manickam Standing Counsel for Government For R-5 : Mr.Vinothkumar ----

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.[MD]No.6512 of 2021

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶23

The petitioner seeks for a direction upon respondents 1 to 3 to evict the encroachment caused by the fifth respondent to an extent of 3.5 cents in old survey No.179/1, New Survey No.258/28 Thenur II bit Village, within Samayanallur firka of Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶24

2.Though the official respondents have not filed a counter affidavit, the fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit and he has also filed a typed set of papers enclosing a copy of the sale deed, dated 20.09.2002, registered as Document No.1660 of 2002, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Sholavandan.

¶25

On a perusal of the recital in the sale deed, we find that the fifth respondent has purchased the property from M.Subramani, S/o.Murugandi and three others. Further, on reading the recital, there is no narration about how M.Subramani and others have got title to the property.

¶26

4.Therefore, in our considered view, the sale deed, dated 20.09.2002, cannot confer any absolute right on the fifth respondent. However, before taking action one more opportunity is to be given to the fifth respondent.

¶27

The third respondent, Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, is directed to issue a notice to the fifth respondent, to appear in person and produce the documents of title of M.Subramani and others, his vendors and also any patta issued in their favour. If the fifth respondent is able to establish his title through such documents or patta, then appropriate orders shall be passed by the third respondent or else the third respondent shall take action for eviction within 15 days, thereafter. During such enquiry, the petitioner shall also be heard in the matter by issuing a notice.

¶28

6.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.P.[MD]No.6512 of 2021

¶37

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.

¶38

To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. 4.Revenue Inspector, Samayanallur Firka, Samayanallur, Madurai.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.A.JOHNVINCENT, Advocate ( SR-19808[F] dated 22/06/2021 )

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-19929[F] dated 22/06/2021 )

¶41

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD]No.6512 of 2021 21.06.2021

¶42

TP(CO) TR(07.07.2021) 3P 7C

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

Alagarsamy.S v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagarsamy.S v. the Dist.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

A.D.G.P. Civil Defence Vs N.Sundarapandiyan

The Tiruchirappalli City Corporation Vs Sundarrajan

Ramasamy Vs the Dist. Collector

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