Disposed

Matthew.J v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Oct 2022WP(MD)/23707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities to remove illegal encroachments preventing access to the petitioner's house. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary action on merits within eight weeks, following due process.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2022 and take necessary action on encroachment within eight weeks following due process of law.

Matthew.J Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.23707 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.10.2022

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶4

W.P(MD)No.23707 of 2022

¶5

J.Matthew ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, The District Collectors Office, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶6

The Commissioner, Office of the Madurai District City Administration Office, Madurai - 625 002.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner, Division II (North), Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the illegal encroachments made, forbearing the petitioner to enter into his house situated at Madurai District in Madurai North Circle, Bibikulam Village, Ward No.14, Block No.11, T.S. No.1 (Old T.S. No.29/1pt), with a measurement of 512.52 Sq.Ft., by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 01.09.2022.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Elango For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Nataraj Government Advocate for R1 Mr.K.K.Kannan Standing Counsel for R2

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J. )

¶14

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P(MD)No.23707 of 2022

¶17

remove the illegal encroachments made in Ward No.14, Block No.11, T.S. No.1 (Old T.S. No.29/1pt), measuring to an extent of 512.52 Sq.Ft., in Madurai North Circle, Bibikulam Village, by considering his representation dated 01.09.2022.

¶18

Heard Mr.H.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.N.GA.Nataraj, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first respondent and Mr.K.K.Kannan, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice for the second respondent. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

Pointing out that some persons have made encroachment at the entrance of his dwelling house and thereby preventing free ingress and egress to his house, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.09.2022, to the third respondent, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is unattended. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider his representation dated 01.09.2022, in accordance with law.

¶20

Considering the limited scope of the prayer now sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.09.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any encroachment as claimed by the petitioner, necessary action has to be taken by the authorities concerned for removal of the same, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/11/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

pkn

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P(MD)No.23707 of 2022

¶29

The District Collector, The District Collectors Office, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶30

The Commissioner, Office of the Madurai District City Administration Office, Madurai - 625 002.

¶31

The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Division II (North), Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.H.ELANGO, Advocate ( SR-49788[F] dated 17/10/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.K.KANNAN, Advocate ( SR-50172[F] dated 18/10/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-50048[F] dated 18/10/2022 )

¶33

W.P(MD)No.23707 of 2022 17.10.2022

¶34

AMS(31.10.2022) 3P 8C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

Matthew.J v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matthew.J 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

Chandiramohan .I Vs The District Collector

Sujithra, Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Sasikumar Vs The District Collector

K.R.Sakthivel Raja Vs P.S.Balasubramanian

Murugesan.v Vs The District Collector

Suresh Vs The District Collector