Disposed

Rajanikanth v. the Manager (Technical)

Madras HC19 Jan 2022WP(MD)/690/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of consolidated writ petitions challenging notices issued by NHAI for removal of encroachments on National Highway. Court directed authorities to conduct a proper survey and measure of the disputed land before proceeding with removal of petitioners in case they are lawful occupants.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to measure and survey the property; if petitioners are found in occupation, they may be removed in known manner of law.

Rajanikanth Vs the Manager (Technical) — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.690, 701, 705, 707 & 709 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.690, 701, 705, 707 and 709 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.550, 554, 558, 561 and 562 of 2022 Rajanikanth ... Petitioner in W.P.690/2022 Saravana Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.701/2022 Devendran ... Petitioner in W.P.705/2022 Baskaran ... Petitioner in W.P.707/2022 Chelladurai ... Petitioner in W.P.709/2022

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Manager (Technical) Indian National Highway Authority, The Project Director Office, No.1, 2^nd Floor, Subramaniyapuram 3^rd Street, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent in all WPs

¶9

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.690/2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 21.12.2021 in respect of Survey No.134/2, 134/7 with an extent of 70 sq.mtr (GVS Maligai Shop) situate Melamuthudaiyanpatti Village, Vellanur Revenue Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District and quash the same.

¶10

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.701/2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 21.12.2021 in respect of Survey No.134/2, 134/7 with an extent of 42 sq.mtr. in the petitioner's cell phone shop and shed situate Melamuthudaiyanpatti Village, Vellanur Revenue Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District and quash the same.

¶11

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.705/2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 21.12.2021 in respect of Survey No.134/2, 134/7 with an extent of 435.50 sq.mtr. (Hotel and Tea shop) situate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Page 1/3

¶13

W.P(MD)Nos.690, 701, 705, 707 & 709 of 2022

¶14

Melamuthudaiyanpatti Village, Vellanur Revenue Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District and quash the same.

¶15

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.707/2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 21.12.2021 in respect of Survey No.134/2, 134/7 with an extent of 77 sq.mtr. (Provision Store) situate Melamuthudaiyanpatti Village, Vellanur Revenue Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District and quash the same.

¶16

Prayer in W.P(MD)No.709/2022 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent pertaining to the impugned notice dated 21.12.2021 in respect of Survey No.134/2, 134/7 with an extent of 44 sq.mtr. (Mohan Chicken Shop) situate Melamuthudaiyanpatti Village, Vellanur Revenue Village, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District and quash the same.

¶17

For Petitioner(in all WPs) : Mr.K.Baalasundharam For Respondent(in all WPs) : No appearance

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by

¶20

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶21

In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the notice issued by the Manager (Technical), Indian National Highway Authority, Karaikudi. The notice specifically states that on the Trichy-Karaikudi National Highway near Muthudaiyanpatti Village, accidents occur frequently. Besides, the respondent authorities proposed to construct a sewerage channel, they wanted to remove all those encroachments along the National Highway. Accordingly, the impugned notices are issued to all the encroachers to raise their objections, if any, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the notice, otherwise, the encroachments have to be removed by themselves within a period of 7 days. The said notices are put to challenge in the above writ petitions.

¶22

2. In all the impugned notices, the survey numbers referred are 134/2 and 134/7 in Muthudaiyanpatti Village. In W.P(MD)No.690 of 2022, in support of the case of the petitioner, he has produced a sale deed dated 10.05.2005. What has been purchased by the petitioner under the said sale deed is in Survey No.134/5. Similarly, in W.P(MD)No.701 of 2022, though the petitioner claims that he had not occupied or encroached on Survey Nos.134/2 and 134/7, he has not produced any document of title to support his case. Same is the case with the other owners who are the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.705, 707 and 709 of 2022.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

Page 2/3

¶25

W.P(MD)Nos.690, 701, 705, 707 & 709 of 2022

¶26

3. Curiously, the petitioner in all the writ petitions have produced the patta of one Gunasekaran who owns a portion of the land in Survey No.134/7. Though originally the learned counsel for the petitioners mentioned that notice was issued in a writ petition filed by the said Gunasekaran, later, he stated that the said Gunasekaran had only filed the writ petition and not yet moved. It is also not known why the patta standing in the name of Gunasekaran for the Survey No.134/7 is filed in all the writ petitions, when the petitioners by themselves are unable to file any document of title in support of their case.

¶27

4. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the authorities without surveying the lands are trying to remove the petitioners from their possession. When the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned notices are totally unconnected to the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot raise such objection.

¶28

5. Be that as it may, though we are not inclined to entertain any of the writ petitions, we only direct the respondent to measure and survey the property before the petitioners are removed as encroachers, so that it will eliminate any doubt in the minds of the petitioners that they have been unauthorisedly thrown out. 6. Therefore, the respondent is directed to measure the property and in the event, the petitioners are in occupation of the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned notice, they may be removed in the manner known to law.

¶29

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

bala

¶31

¶32

The Manager (Technical) Indian National Highway Authority, The Project Director Office, No.1, 2^nd Floor, Subramaniyapuram 3^rd Street, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶33

W.P(MD)Nos.690, 701, 705, 707 & 709 of 2022 DATED : 19.01.2022

¶34

MGJ(31.01.2022) 3P 2C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

Page 3/3

Rajanikanth v. the Manager (Technical)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanikanth v. the Manager (Technical)

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

Vinoth Vs the District Collector

Radha Vs the District Collector

Syed Babu Cm Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Alagarasan Vs the Principal Secretary

The Branch Manager Vs the Registry

Muthukumar Vs the Manager (Technical)