Disposed

Senthilkumar.S v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Nov 2022WP(MD)/366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged existing encroachments on his land via writ petition. The High Court noted that authorities claimed partial removal but directed a complete removal within six weeks following due notice and legal process.

What did the court decide?

Authority directed to remove encroachments completely within six weeks after giving due notice and opportunity to all parties concerned following due process of law.

Senthilkumar.S Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

S.Senthilkumar

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Sivaganga District, Sivaganga

¶11

2.The Tahsildar Karaikudi Taluk Sivaganga District

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer Union Panchayat Karaikudi Taluk Sivaganga District

¶13

4.The President

¶14

P.Nerpugapatti Paganeri (Post) Karaikudi Taluk Sivagangai District

¶15

5.M.Pillappan

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

¶19

7.Kaalitheerdan ... Respondents

¶20

6.P.Vellaiyan

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 5 to 7 in S.No.541/1 of P.Nerpugapatti, Paganeri Post, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2020, within a time frame.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rabeek Raja For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 5 to 7 in Survey No.541/1 of P.Nerpugapatti, Paganeri Post, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.12.2020, within a time frame.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

¶29

2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned

¶30

Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the encroachments, as projected by the petitioner, have been removed on 16.09.2022 and to that effect, he has also produced a copy of the proceedings in O.Mu.Aa5/5492/2021, dated 23.09.2022, issued by the second respondent, before this Court.

¶31

3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the encroachments have not been removed fully and the encroachments have been removed partially.

¶32

4. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the authority concerned is directed to remove the encroachments completely, after giving due notice and sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

¶36

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

¶37

costs.

¶38

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

¶39

08.11.2022

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

krk

¶42

To: 1.The District Collector, Sivaganga District, Sivaganga.

¶43

2.The Tahsildar, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District.

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 5_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

¶47

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

¶48

krk

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.366 of 2022

¶50

08.11.2022

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

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

Senthilkumar.S v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumar.S 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

Eswaran.K Vs the District Collector

The Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/s. Sri Shunmuga Traders

Shalivahanan. A.D Vs The Authorized Officer

Sugapriya R Vs The District Collector

Balakrishnan.P Vs The District Collector

The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable, Vs S. Shaji