Allowed

Seeni.P v. The District Collector

Madras HC21 Nov 2022WP(MD)/26231/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought mandamus to remove an alleged encroachment on a public pathway by the fifth respondent. The High Court, finding the respondents had instructed removal, directed the second respondent to inspect and, upon verification, remove the encroachment following due process within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to inspect, survey if necessary, and remove the encroachment after notice within 12 weeks following due process.

Seeni.P Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

P.Seeni

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District

¶11

2.The Tahsildar Thiruchuzhi Taluk Virudhunagar District

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer Narikudi Panchayat Union Virudhunagar District

¶13

4.The Village Panchayat Union Velanoorani Village Virudhunagar District

¶14

5.Veeraiah ... Respondents

¶15

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment made by the fifth respondent in Survey No.494/1, situated in Valayapatti, Velanoorani Village, Thiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.T.Veerakumar for R5

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader, takes notice for

¶23

the respondents 1 to R4 and Mr.T.Veerakumar, learned counsel, takes notifce for the fifth respondent.

¶24

2. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶28

3. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment made by the fifth respondent in Survey No.494/1, situated in Valayapatti, Velanoorani Village, Thiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶29

4. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent has made encroachment in the public pathway in Survey No.494/1 of Valayapatti, Velanoorani Village and on account of which, the general public are unable to use the pathway. Further, based on the representation submitted by the villagers ventilating the said encroachment, the second respondent vide order dated 16.09.2022 directed the third respondent to remove the encroachment. However, till date, the encroachment has not been removed. Hence, this writ petition.

¶30

5. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent refuted the above allegations and according to him, there is no encroachment in the subject pathway, as alleged by the petitioner.

¶31

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶34

6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, on instructions, submitted there is an encroachment, as projected by the petitioner, in the subject pathway in the form of a wire fencing to an extent of 69 square meter, due to which, the ingress and egress of the general public get affected and the second respondent has also instructed the third respondent to remove the said encroachment and report back to him. To that effect, the learned Government Pleader has produced a communication of the second respondent addressed to him, dated 19.11.2022, before this Court. Thus, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the encroachment in the subject pathway would be removed, by following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

7. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to conduct an inspection in the subject pathway and if necessary, to conduct a survey in the presence of all the parties concerned and if the survey reveals any encroachment as pointed out by the petitioner, the same shall be removed, after giving due notice and sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶39

8. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶40

costs.

¶41

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

¶42

21.11.2022

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶44

krk

¶45

To:

¶46

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶47

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuzhi Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶48

3.The Block Development Officer, Narikudi Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.

¶49

4.The Village Panchayat Union, Velanoorani Village, Virudhunagar District.

¶50

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶53

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

¶54

krk

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.26231 of 2022

¶56

21.11.2022

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

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

Seeni.P v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeni.P 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

P.Muppulirajan, Vs the District Collector

M/S King of Kings Educational Charitable Trust Vs the Authorized Officer

M.Vivek Vs The Tahsildar

R.Packiyam, S/O. Ramaiah Nadar Vs the Inspector General of

Thiyagarajan.v Vs The District Collector

Selvam.M Vs The Chief Judicial Magistrate