Disposed

Veluchamy .R v. the District Collector

Madras HC24 Nov 2022WP(MD)/804/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging planting of saplings on petitioner's land. Court directed respondents to consider the representation and remove encroachment via due process within 8 weeks, disposing of the petition without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and remove the encroachment if any, by following due process of law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Veluchamy .R Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.804 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.804 of 2022

R.Veluchamy

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector,

¶13

Virudhunagar District,

¶14

Virudhunagar.

¶15

2.The Sub Collector,

¶16

Sivakasi Division,

¶17

Virudhunagar District.

¶18

3.The Assistant Director, (Panchayat),

¶19

Collectorate, Virudhunagar,

¶20

Virudhunagar District.

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.804 of 2022

¶24

4.The Tahsildar,

¶25

Vatrayiruppu Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶26

5.The Block Development Officer, Vatrayiruppu Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶27

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to remove the encroachment made by the 5^th respondent in the form of planting saplings in the petitioner's land in Survey No.960/2, Patta No.965, to an extent of 9 Ares, Valayapatti, Kunnoor Village, Vatrayiruppu Taluk, Virudhunagar District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2021.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Solaisamy For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to remove the encroachment made by the 5^th

¶32

Page 2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.804 of 2022

¶35

respondent in the form of planting saplings in the petitioner's land in Survey No.960/2, Patta No.965, to an extent of 9 Ares, Valayapatti, Kunnoor Village, Vatrayiruppu Taluk, Virudhunagar District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2021.

¶36

2.Pointing out the aforesaid encroachment made by the 5^th respondent, the petitioner sent a representation dated 25.10.2021 to the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 seeking removal of the same and pursuant thereto, though the 1^st respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Ppee5/10625/2019, dated 10.11.20121 directed the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action on the said representation, who in turn, directed the 5^th respondent to take appropriate action vide proceedings in Na.Ka.UE4/4200/2020, dated 25.11.2021, the 5^th respondent had not taken any action to remove the aforesaid encroachment. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶37

3.On 20.01.2022, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶38

“Mr.B.Saravanan, AGP, accepts notice for R1 to R4. Mr.G.Sivarajan, learned Govt Advocate accepts notice for R5.

¶39

Page 3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.804 of 2022

¶42

The 5^th respondent says that already survey has been done and the saplings are planted only on the poramboke lands. He is directed to file an affidavit in support of his contention and also the sketch along with FMB.

¶43

Post on 17.02.2022.”

¶44

4.Though this Court had directed the 5^th respondent to file an affidavit,

¶45

till date, it has not been filed.

¶46

5.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2021 will be considered and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law and appropriate action would be taken for removal of the encroachment, if any, in the place in question by due process of law, within a time frame, for which, the learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable.

¶47

Page 4 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.804 of 2022

¶50

6.In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any encroachment as pointed out by the petitioner, the authorities concerned shall remove the same, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶52

costs.

¶53

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

¶54

24.11.2022

¶55

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Myr To

¶56

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶57

Page 5 of 6

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.804 of 2022

¶60

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶61

AND

¶62

J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶63

Myr

¶64

2.The Sub Collector, Sivakasi Division, Virudhunagar District.

¶65

3.The Assistant Director, (Panchayat), Collectorate, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶66

4.The Tahsildar, Vatrayiruppu Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶67

5.The Block Development Officer, Vatrayiruppu Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.

¶68

W.P.(MD)No.804 of 2022

¶69

24.11.2022

¶70

Page 6 of 6

¶71

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

Veluchamy .R v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veluchamy .R 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

Sivamani. P Vs The Chief Engineer

Jothi.R Vs the District Collector

Chelladurai.S Vs the District Collector

Prathapraj.R.S.S Vs the District Collector

S. Ramani Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt.

Pasupathy .S Vs the District Collector