Disposed

C.M. Adaikkan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC20 Oct 2022WP(MD)/3247/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to remove encroachment on a common passage by a third party. The court disposed of the petition by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary action within eight weeks. No costs. This direction is within the limited scope of the prayer without expressing an opinion on the u

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and remove encroachment within eight weeks after hearing all parties.

C.M. Adaikkan Vs the State Rep by — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3247 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.3247 of 2020

C.M.Adaikkan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep By, The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk,Pudukottai District.

¶12

K.Rajakumari ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2019 and the legal notice dated 30.11.2019 and consequently to direct the second respondent to remove the encroachment made by the third respondent in the common passage, comprised Survey No.427/2 without any further delay.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Christopher For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.A.C.Asaithambi for R3

¶15

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.3247 of 2020

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to remove the encroachment made by the third respondent in the common passage in Survey No.427/2, based on his representation dated 25.10.2019 and the legal notice dated 30.11.2019.

¶20

Heard Mr.C.Christopher, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.A.C.Asaithambi , learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶21

Pointing out that the third respondent has made encroachment in a common passage along with Government poramboke land in Survey No.427/2 at Vettukadu Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai District and thereby preventing free ingress and egress to the petitioner's agricultural land, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.10.2019, to the second

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.3247 of 2020

¶24

respondent, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is

¶25

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 25.10.2019, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶26

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 second respondent, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2019, 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 due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, third 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.

¶27

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

¶28

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No pkn

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.3247 of 2020

¶31

¶32

The District Collector, Pudukottai District.

¶33

The Tahsildar, Thirumayam Taluk,Pudukottai District.

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.3247 of 2020

¶36

and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶37

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶38

pkn

¶39

W.P(MD)No.3247 of 2020

¶40

20.10.2022

¶41

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

C.M. Adaikkan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M. Adaikkan v. the State Rep by

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

Muthu Vs the District Collector