Disposed

Angusamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Nov 2022WP(MD)/4213/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking removal of encroachment on a village tank and irrigation canals. The Court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, survey the site with notice and hearing, and take action within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the representation dated 05.11.2019, survey the encroachment, and take action following due process within 12 weeks.

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

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4213 of 2020

Angusamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Sivagangai. Sivagangai District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to remove the encroachment in the petitioner's village Kanmoi(tank)

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2020

¶18

namely Periyakuluvachi Kanmoi along with irrigation canals at Periyakiluvachi Village, Kalaiayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 05.11.2019.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.PR.Boomeerajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader * * *

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made in Periyakuluvachi Kanmoi and its irrigation canals at Periyakiluvachi Village, Kalaiayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District, based on his representation dated 05.11.2019.

¶23

Heard Mr.PR.Boomeerajan, learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner and Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

¶25

Alleging that encroachments have been made in Periyakuluvachi Kanmoi and its irrigation canals at Periyakiluvachi Village, Kalaiayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District, the petitioner submitted various representations to the respondents and finally on

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2020

¶28

05.11.2019, and the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, remains as such. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the petitioner has sought for a larger relief, he would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the third respondent to dispose of his representation dated 05.11.2019, within a time frame.

¶30

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 third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.11.2019, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any encroachment as claimed by the petitioner, after issuing notice and conducting survey in the presence of the petitioner and any other parties, the authorities concerned shall take necessary action for removal of the encroachment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2020

¶33

parties concerned and by following due process of law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from

¶34

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶35

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 22.11.2022

¶36

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sj

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar, Kalaiyarkovil Taluk, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District.

¶41

4.The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Sivagangai.

¶42

Sivagangai District.

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.4213 of 2020

¶45

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶46

and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶47

¶48

W.P(MD)No.4213 of 2020

¶49

22.11.2022

¶50

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

Angusamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angusamy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Seeni.P Vs The District Collector

Thiyagarajan.v Vs The District Collector

Rajam.K Vs the Dist. Collector

M.Shajahan Vs the Commissioner

K.Velusamy, Vs the District Collector