Dismissed

M.R. Gurumoorthi v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Oct 2022WP(MD)/1267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought directions to remove alleged encroachments on a public pathway. The court held the dispute concerned a private pathway between private parties. The petition was closed with liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for remedy.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is closed with liberty granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court.

M.R. Gurumoorthi Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1267 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶8

W.P.(MD) No.1267 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14967 of 2020

M.R.Gurumoorthi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Tuticorin.

¶13

2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Pudur, Tuticorin District.

¶14

3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District.

¶15

4.Rajammal

¶16

5.Thuruvammal

¶17

6.Selvaraj ... Respondents

¶18

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.1267 of 2020

¶21

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments made by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in a public pathway in Survey No.258/3, situated at North Muthaiahpuram Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 No Appearance for R4 to R6

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

[Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

¶26

directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachments made by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in a public pathway in Survey No.258/3, situated at North Muthaiahpuram Village, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶27

2 . The respondents 2 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavits. The

¶28

learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.1267 of 2020

¶32

relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that there is no encroachment in the place in question as alleged by the petitioner. Since the dispute relates only to the private pathway between the petitioner and the private respondents in their patta lands, the Tahsildar Vilathikulam, vide proceedings in Ref.A6/7925/2019 dated 05.11.2019 informed the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to work out his remedy.

¶33

3. The aforesaid submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶34

is not refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, recording the said submission, this Writ Petition is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] vsm 19.10.2022

¶36

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.1267 of 2020

¶39

R.MAHADEVAN, J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶40

vsm

¶41

¶42

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Building, Tuticorin.

¶43

2.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Pudur, Tuticorin District.

¶44

3.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Vilathikulam, Tuticorin District.

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.1267 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.14967 of 2020

¶46

19.10.2022

¶47

Page 4 of 4

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.R. Gurumoorthi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Gurumoorthi 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

K. Jeyaraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.Mohandoss Vs a.Nirmala Mary

Saravana Perumal, S/O.Palani, Vs the District Collector

F.Selvin Julius Vs the Commissioner

Annamalai Vs the District Collector

K.Annapooranam Vs The District Collector