Partly allowed

Muthu v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Oct 2022WP(MD)/2894/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made by the fifth respondent in Survey No.349, Achankulam, Vallarenthal Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on the petitioners representation dated 22.11.2019, within a stipulated time. The court directed the respondents to

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners representation dated 22.11.2019 and take appropriate action for removal of encroachment within eight weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of

Muthu Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.2894 of 2020

Muthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Sivagangai.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Dist.

¶12

3. The Tahsildar,

¶13

Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶14

The Village Administrative Officer, Valleranthal Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶15

Pothumponnu

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to remove the encroachment made by the fifth respondent in Survey No.349 to an extent of 1 Hectare and 4 Ares situated in Achankulam, Vallarenthal Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on his representation dated 22.11.2019, within a stipulated time.

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2020

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment made by the fifth respondent in Survey No.349, to an extent of 1 Hectare and 4 Ares, situated in Achankulam, Vallarenthal Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on his representation dated 22.11.2019, within a time frame.

¶25

Heard Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶27

Pointing out that the fifth respondent has encroached the Government poramboke land in Survey No.349 in Achankulam, Vallarenthal Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, by constructing two houses

¶28

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2020

¶30

illegally, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.11.2019, to the respondents 1 to 4, 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 second respondent to consider and dispose of his representation dated 22.11.2019, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶31

Considering the limited scope of the prayer now sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the claim made by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 to 4, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2019, if not considered earlier and if there is any encroachment as claimed by the petitioner, appropriate action shall be taken for removal of the same, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, fifth respondent and all other parties concerned and also by due process of law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶32

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 20.10.2022

¶33

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No pkn

¶34

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2020

¶36

¶37

The District Collector, Sivagangai.

¶38

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Dist.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶40

The Village Administrative Officer, Valleranthal Group, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶41

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.2894 of 2020

¶43

and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶44

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶45

pkn

¶46

W.P(MD)No.2894 of 2020

¶47

20.10.2022

¶48

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Muthu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthu 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

F.Selvin Julius Vs the Commissioner

M.R. Gurumoorthi Vs the District Collector

Annamalai Vs the District Collector

Muthusamy, Vs the District Collector

Sudar Olivu Vs the Dist. Collector

C.M. Adaikkan Vs the State Rep by