Disposed

Sugapriya R v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Nov 2022WP(MD)/9652/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction notice. Instead of deciding the petition, the Court directed the concerned authority to conduct a survey of the disputed common pathway with residents present. The authority must remove any verified encroachments after providing due notice to all parties within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned authority to conduct a survey of the common pathway in Survey No.92/9 in the presence of residents and remove any encroachments after due notice within eight weeks.

Sugapriya R Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9652 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.9652 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.6928 of 2022

R.Sugapriya

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Melur, Madurai District

¶13

3.The Tahsildar Madurai South Taluk Madurai

¶14

4.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats) Thirupparankundram Union Madurai District

¶15

5.The Executive Officer / President Viraganur Panchayat Madurai

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.9652 of 2022

¶19

6.The Inspector of Police Silaiman Police Station Madurai District

¶20

7.T.Ramu 8.C.Rajalakshmi ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned notice issued by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.01, dated 08.04.2022 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary consequently directing the official respondents to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 7 and 8 putting steps, drainage and neem tree on the 16^th feet common road consisting survey No.92/9 of Viraganur Village, which is using to reach the house of the petitioner according to the order passed by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.4247/2021/C, dated 31.03.2022.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sevugaraja For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Nataraj Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Antony Arulraj for R7 & R8

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.9652 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

Challenge in this writ petition is to an eviction notice dated 08.04.2022, issued by the fifth respondent, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment made by her in Survey No.92/9A of Balaji Nagar, Viraganur Village, Madurai District, within seven days from the receipt of the said notice, with a consequential direction to the official respondents to remove the encroachment put up by the respondents 7 & 8 in the 16 feet common road in Survey No.92/9.

¶29

2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that the encroachment in the form of a gate put up by the petitioner has been removed and to that effect, he has produced a copy of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3395/2022/T3, dated 08.11.2022, issued by the fourth respondent.

¶30

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the respondents 7 and 8 have encroached the 16 feet common pathway

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.9652 of 2022

¶34

in Survey No.92/9 by planting trees and constructing steps and drainage tanks, the ingress and egress of the residents of the locality get affected.

¶35

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 stoutly refuted the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

5. In such circumstances, in order to give a quietus to the dispute between the parties concerned, this Court deems it fit to direct the authority concerned to conduct a survey in the common pathway in Survey No.92/9 in the presence of the residents of the locality and then to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶37

6. Accordingly, the authority concerned is directed to conduct a survey in the common pathway in Survey No.92/9 in the presence of the residents of the locality and if there is any encroachment by anyone, the same shall be removed, after giving due notice and sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.9652 of 2022

¶41

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

¶42

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 08.11.2022

¶44

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk

¶45

To:

¶46

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶47

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, Madurai District.

¶48

3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai.

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.9652 of 2022

¶52

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

¶53

krk

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.9652 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6928 of 2022

¶55

08.11.2022

¶56

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶57

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

Sugapriya R v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugapriya 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

Eswaran.K Vs the District Collector

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

Shalivahanan. A.D Vs The Authorized Officer

Senthilkumar.S Vs the District Collector

Balakrishnan.P Vs The District Collector

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