Dismissed

P.Selvam v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Mar 2022WP/1761/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking mandamus to direct respondent officers to initiate action against appellants for encroaching on a Thar Road and to preserve the road. The High Court held that encroachment was prevented by the lower officers and dismissed the petition with a direction to maintain the road and take immediate action against future encroachments.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Direction to respondents 1 to 3 to maintain the Thar Road and take immediate action against any future encroachment.

P.Selvam Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 01.03.2022

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, Chief Justice

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.P.No.1761 of 2022

¶8

P.Selvam

¶9

P.Ramamurthy

¶10

.. Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶14

Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

¶15

The Tahsildar,

¶16

Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶17

S.Vivek

¶18

Karthikeyan

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action against the fourth and fifth respondents based on the complaint of the petitioners, dated 23.12.2021 and to preserve the road in Suvey No.14/1, Kalpavi Village, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶21

For petitioner : M/s.N.Mohanapriya For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar,

¶22

State Govt. Pleader assisted by Mr.Mugilan, Govt. Advocate for RR-1 to 3 No appearance for RR-4 and 5

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

The Writ Petition is filed seeking direction against the respondents 4 and 5 in reference to the complaint made by the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner was regarding encroachment on the Thar Road by the respondents 4 and 5.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the effort of the respondents 4 and 5 to encroach upon the Thar Road, has been taken care of and the same has not been permitted. The Thar Road is now free from encroachment and the respondents 4 and 5 would not be allowed to capture any area of the Thar Road.

¶28

In view of the statement aforesaid, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to maintain the Thar Road on the Government land and if any one tries to encroach it, immediately, they shall take action, as presently, due to their action, the respondents 4 and 5 could not encroach the Thar Road. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(co)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

¶35

The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶36

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

¶37

The Tahsildar,

¶38

Bhavani Taluk, Erode District.

¶39

+1 cc to Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri, Advocate Sr.NO. 13431 +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.NO. 13785

W.P.No.1761 of 2022

SRA(CO)

A.SK(07/03/2022)

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

P.Selvam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Selvam 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

Krishnaveni Vs State of Tamilnadu

P.Vijayakumari, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Brilla David Vs the Government of India

K.Venkatesan Vs The District collector (chennai District)

S.Ramasamy Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Chella Perumal (Died) Vs Gopalakrishnan