Dismissed

R.Muthukkumarasamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Apr 2022WP/7744/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the removal of a statue installed on government land and the demolition of a wall restricting public movement. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was a non-resident with no direct connection to the village holding the land, suggesting an ulterior motive.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability due to the petitioner's lack of connection to the locality.

R.Muthukkumarasamy Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶5

W.P.No.7744 of 2022

¶6

R.Muthukkumarasamy ...Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶9

The Sub-Collector, Pollachi,

¶10

Coimbatore District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made by installing a statue of God Karuparayan at S.F.No.334 of Perumpathi Village of Puravipalayam, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 31.12.2021.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran, Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made by installing a statue of God Karuparayan at S.F.No.334 of Perumpathi Village of Puravipalayam, Pollachi

¶19

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

¶20

Taluk, Coimbatore District, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 31.12.2021.

¶21

2.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶22

that the petitioner is doing various welfare activities for the people at general. The land covered in S.F.No.334 of Perumpathi Village of Puraivipalayam, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District is a Government land, therefore, the respondents are responsible for maintaining the same. While so, different religious people belonging to Hindu, Muslim and Christian etc. are living in and around the small hill in the said S.F.No.334. In order to grab the said Government land, some antisocial elements put up a statue of God Karuparayan in the year 2019 and started preventing the free movement of the villagers by erecting a wall by coconut leaf, thereby the said anti social elements are also claiming right over the said property and preventing the free access of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people and the people of other religions by raising tin seats. Therefore, a representation has been given on 31.12.2021 to the respondents requesting them to remove the said encroachment on the Government Land, but no action has been forthcoming. Hence, the Present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶23

3.Heard Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader who takes notice for the respondents.

¶24

4.Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the writ petition itself is not at all maintainable. The reason being that when the petitioner claims to be the resident of No.2/74-A, KarpagavinayagarKovil Street, Kittasoorampalayam, Kurumbapalayam Post, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, it is not known how he is affected when the statue of God Karuparayan was installed by the village people in a Poromboke Land in S.F.No.334 of Perumpathi Village, Puravipalayam, Pollachi Taluk, who is no way connected with Perumpathi Village. Therefore, finding no merits whatsoever, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition has been filed with some ulterior motive.

¶25

5.In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

tsi

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶34

The Sub-Collector, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶36

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader, S.R.No.22705

¶37

W.P.No.7744 of 2022

¶38

SKM(CO) RGA(12/04/2022)

¶39

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

R.Muthukkumarasamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Muthukkumarasamy 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

G.Pichandi Vs The District Collector

G.Kamachi Vs The Chief Electrical Inspector to Government

The Karur District Quarry and Crushers Owners Association Vs N.Muruganandam

Ekambaram Vs The Secretary to Government

John Lopez Vs State Level Scrutiny committee

P.Sadanandan Vs The Secretary