Disposed

Balaraman.G v. State of Tamil nadu

Madras HC4 Apr 2022WP/8246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of a writ petition challenging interference with the petitioner's property possession by highway authorities. The court directed a survey of the disputed land by the Tahsildar within two weeks to ascertain encroachment based on sale deed and revenue records, after which the petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to survey the disputed land within two weeks based on the sale deed and relevant documents; writ petition disposed.

Balaraman.G Vs State of Tamil nadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.8246 of 2022 and WMP.No.8240 of 2022

G.Balaraman

..Petitioner

-vs-

State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Tamil Nadu State Highways Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

¶11

The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu State Highways Department Chennai Metro No.1, Brahmin Street West Saidapet Chennai 600 015

¶12

The Assistant Engineer Tamil Nadu State Highways Department Constructions and Maintenance Tambaram Circle Chennai 600 042

¶13

The Tahsildar Velachery Taluk Velachery, Chennai

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at No.2/189, Survey No.362, Velachery Village, 100 feet Road By-Pass, Chennai 600 042, without following due process of law.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner For Respondents

¶18

:: Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar :: Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated at No.2/189, Survey No.362, Velachery Village, 100 feet Road ByPass, Chennai 600 042, without following due process of law.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land situated at No.2/189, Survey No.362, Velachery Village, 100 feet Road ByPass, Chennai 600 042 having an extent of 3600 sq.ft., purchased under a registered sale deed dated 6.9.1975 bearing Document No.2237 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet and the same has been used as a commercial complex housing various shops and establishments. This property was the subject matter of acquisition by the Tamil Nadu Government vide a notification dated 23.5.2001 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the said acquisition was assailed in Writ Petition Nos.12329 of 2001 etc., by a common order dated 21.08.2013, the writ petitions were allowed by this Court setting aside the Section 4(1) notification impugned therein. Thereafter, the third respondent has illegally demanded 8 feet of frontage from the petitioner's property alleging that it is the property of the Highways. A notice dated 16.3.2022 was also served upon the petitioner on 17.3.2022 directing him to remove the compound wall of the property within 7 days time. But, thereafter, without giving any further notice, the third respondent has demolished the compound wall by using a JCB. Such highhanded action on the part of the respondents is unfair and unpalatable, therefore, a direction should be issued to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at No.2/189, Survey No.362, Velachery Village, 100 feet Road By-Pass, Chennai. Finally, the learned counsel also stated that if the Surveyor comes and undertakes a measurement of the land with the sale deed and other revenue records, no prejudice will be caused to any one. After the survey, if the respondents come to know that the petitioner has not encroached upon the Highways land, that would solve the perennial problem.

¶23

It is at this stage, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, taking instructions from the Officers concerned who are also present in

¶24

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

¶25

the Court, stated that as requested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the land in question shall be surveyed by the Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk with the help of the Surveyor within two weeks time.

¶26

Considering the fair submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, we direct the Tahsildar, Velachery Taluk to do the needful in accordance with law for survey of the land situated at No.2/189, Survey No.362, Velachery Village, 100 feet Road By-Pass, Chennai 600 042 by the Surveyor, on the basis of the sale deed and other relevant documents available with both parties, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.M.P.No.8240 of 2022 is closed. There is no order, however, as to costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

The Secretary to Government Tamil Nadu State Highways Department Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

¶34

The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu State Highways Department Chennai Metro, No.1, Brahmin Street West Saidapet, Chennai 600 015

¶35

The Assistant Engineer

¶36

Tamil Nadu State Highways Department Constructions and Maintenance

¶37

Tambaram Circle, Chennai 600 042

¶38

The Tahsildar Velachery Taluk Velachery, Chennai

¶39

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23233

W.P.No.8246 of 2022

GPL[co]

NSK 29/04/2022

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

Balaraman.G v. State of Tamil nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaraman.G v. State of Tamil nadu

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

Ekambaram Vs The Secretary to Government

John Lopez Vs State Level Scrutiny committee

R.Muthukkumarasamy Vs The District Collector

Paramasivam Vs The District Collector

G.Ravi Vs The District Collector

G.Thangarasu Vs The District Collector