Dismissed

Arunachalam v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Jan 2022WP(MD)/23206/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider a representation alleging the fifth respondent's encroachment. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to provide essential details such as survey number, area, or location of the land.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; notice not directed to the fifth respondent.

Arunachalam Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.23206 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23206 of 2021

Arunachalam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶11

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶12

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶13

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

5.Murugan ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2021.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader who have taken notice for respondents 1 to 4.

¶18

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation dated 29.11.2021. It is the contention of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner herein that the fifth respondent is doing contract work

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P(MD)No.23206 of 2021

¶21

and he is trying to construct Government buildings in the land of the petitioner.

¶22

However, the description of the land of the petitioner had not been given, the survey number had not been given, the area had not been given, even the village or the territory where the land is situated had not been given. None of the said details were given. All these details are absent in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

¶23

The only aspect given to identify the petitioner is he is residing in Door No.7/255, Sivagamiyapuram Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. But it is not mentioned as to where the fifth respondent is actually trying to construct the land. It is also seen that even in the representation, the details were not available. In view of these facts, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶24

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the nature of the order passed, notice is not directed to the fifth respondent.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

Nsr

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶30

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶31

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶32

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

¶33

2/3

¶34

W.P(MD)No.23206 of 2021

¶35

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

W.P(MD)No.23206 of 2021 03.01.2022

¶37

RK(10.01.2022) 3P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Arunachalam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunachalam 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

Dhanendran a Vs the District Collector

Balaji. K Vs the District Manager

Ravi R Vs the Chief Engineer/Personnel

M/S. Mugavai Indane Gas Agency Vs the General Manager(Lpg-S)

M. Saiyedha Begum Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Balakrishnan. R Vs the District Collector