Partly allowed

Jothi.R v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Nov 2022WP(MD)/931/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 praying for removal of encroachment in a public pathway. Court disposed of petition by directing respondents 3 and 4 to consider a representation and take appropriate action to remove encroachment within twelve weeks after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider petitioner's representation and remove encroachment within twelve weeks after hearing all concerned parties.

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

¶1

W.P(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.931 of 2021 and

¶8

W.M.P(MD) Nos.789 and 790 of 2021

R.Jothi

... Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

The Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶14

The Tahsildhar, North Taluk Madurai District.

¶15

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai Circle, No.169 K.K.Nagar Main Road, Madurai-20. 5. N.Sakthivel ... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶18

W.P(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment in the public pathways allotted by the fourth respondent in T.S.No.2720 at Jawaharpuram, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Navaneetharaj

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate for R1 and R3 Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen for R2 Ms.S.Latha for R4 Mr.L.K.M.Appaji for R5

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to

¶25

issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment in the public pathway allotted by the fourth respondent in T.S.No.2720 at Jawaharpuram, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶26

Heard Mr.A.K.Navaneetharaj, learned counsel for the petitioner;

¶27

Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 3; Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶29

W.P(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶30

appearing for the second respondent; Ms.S.Latha, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Mr.L.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶31

Pointing out that the fifth respondent has made encroachment on the aforesaid public pathway in T.S.No.2720 at Jawaharpuram, K.Pudur, Madurai, by constructing a compound wall, toilet and a gate, thereby restricting the public movement in the aforesaid pathway, the petitioner submitted a representation to the official respondents on 05.12.2020 and the same, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is unattended. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents 3 and 4, to consider and dispose of his representation dated 05.12.2020, in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶32

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 respondents 3 and 4, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.12.2020, if not considered earlier and if there is any encroachment as

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

W.P(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶35

claimed by the petitioner, appropriate action shall be taken for removal of the same, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, fifth respondent and all other parties concerned and also by due process of law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 23.11.2022

¶37

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pkn

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶39

W.P(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶40

To:

¶41

The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶42

The Commissioner of Corporation, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶43

The Tahsildhar, North Taluk Madurai District.

¶44

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Madurai Circle, No.169 K.K.Nagar Main Road, Madurai-20.

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶46

W.P(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶47

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

¶48

pkn

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.931 of 2021

¶50

23.11.2022

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 6_

Jothi.R v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jothi.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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajam.K Vs the Dist. Collector

Angusamy Vs the District Collector

M.Shajahan Vs the Commissioner

Sivamani. P Vs The Chief Engineer

Chelladurai.S Vs the District Collector

Rajangam.P.K Vs the District Magistrate (Collector)