Disposed

Shanmugam v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Apr 2022WP/8219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought removal of encroachments, including four coconut trees, on a 'vandipathai' used as access to his agricultural land. The court directed the Thasildar to survey the land and remove any encroachments confirmed by the survey within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Thasildar to survey the land with a surveyor and remove confirmed encroachments within six weeks.

Shanmugam Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

W.P.No.8219 of 2022

Shanmugam

... Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode.

¶12

The Thasildar, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal District.

¶13

Jayamani

¶14

Dhanasekaran

¶15

Sakthivel

¶16

Balamani

¶17

Rajeswari 9. Maheswari 10.Vetrivel 11.Appavu @ Marappan 12.Pavayi ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation dated

¶18

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

¶19

06.11.2021 seeking removal of encroachment in S.No.126/3, which has been classified as ''vandipathai'' (cart track) pursuant to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent made in O.Mu.No.2994/2021/Aa dated 24.11.2021 on merits and as per law within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner :Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶21

For Respondents :Mr.A.Selvendran, 1 to 3 Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 06.11.2021 seeking removal of encroachment in S.No.126/3, which has been classified as ''vandipathai'' (cart track) pursuant to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent made in O.Mu.No.2994/2021/Aa dated 24.11.2021 on merits and as per law within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being the absolute owner of the agricultural lands to an extent of 1.85 acres and 5.3.5 acres respectively situated in SF.No.124/2 and SF.No.126/2 Sullipalayam Village, Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal Division has been doing agricultural activities. The access to the above said lands are only through S.F.No.126/3 which has been classified as ''vandipathai'' and the same has been in usage for time immemorial. Moreover, this is the only common pathway available for the petitioner and other pattadars who are performing their agricultural activities. The said 'Vandipathi' has also been encroached by planting four coconut trees. Consequently, the petitioner and other farmers could not carry out their agricultural activities. Therefore, a representation dated 06.11.2021 has been given to the respondents 1 to 3. On receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent also directed the 3^rd respondent to conduct an enquiry and to initiate appropriate action for removal of the encroachments, if any by proceedings dated 24.11.2021. Since no action has been forthcoming thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

¶26

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

¶27

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 placing on record a written instructions issued to him by the 3^rd respondent herein, namely, The Thasildar, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal District, would submit that as per the written instructions, four coconut trees are found encroaching the Vandipathai-in-question and on further consideration of the same, if the Tahsildar comes to a conclusion that any encroachment therein including the coconut trees on the Vandipathai, the same would be removed.

¶28

A perusal of the written instructions would also clearly admits the case of the petitioner that there are 4 coconut trees standing on the ''vandipathai'' and the respondents 4 to 12 also appear to have encroached the said vandipathai. Therefore, the Tahsildar, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal District, the 3^rd respondent herein is directed to survey the land-in-question along with a surveyor and if the survey report shows that there is an encroachment, the same shall be removed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶29

With the above observation and direction, the Writ

¶30

Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

// True Copy //

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

tsi

¶36

¶37

The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶38

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode.

¶39

The Thasildar, Paramathi Velur, Namakkal District.

¶40

+1cc to the Government Pleader, SR.No.23647

W.P.No.8219 of 2022

PMK(CO)

CB(22/04/2022)

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

Shanmugam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanmugam 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

Paramasivam Vs The District Collector

G.Ravi Vs The District Collector

Balaraman.G Vs State of Tamil nadu

P.Arukkaniammal Vs The Commissioner

Varalakshmi Vs The District Collector

Ramamoorthy Vs The District Collector