Allowed

A. Thangamalai v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2022WP(MD)/9739/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed an order directing the removal of encroachment in the private property of the fifth respondent, holding that official respondents lack statutory authority to act in such cases. The petitioner was granted liberty to file independent action if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was allowed; the impugned orders were quashed; liberty granted to the fifth respondent to initiate independent action.

A. Thangamalai Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2015

A.Thangamalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

2.The Block Development Officer (E.P), Panchayat Union, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

4.The President, Rangiyam Panchayat, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkotti District.

¶15

5.Periyakaruppan ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.A

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015

¶20

7/248/2015 dated 26.03.2015 directing the 4^th respondent to remove the encroachments made by the petitioner in the 5^th respondent's land in S.No.763/5A, Rangiam Village, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District and the consequential notice issued by the 4^th respondent in his proceedings dated 03.06.2015 and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.PT.S.Narendra Vasan For R1 - R4 : Mr.M.Linga Durai Special Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.J.Balakumaran for M/s.R & P Partners

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the 2^nd respondent herein, directing the 4^th respondent to remove the encroachment made by the writ petitioner in the 5^th respondent's property. Consequentially, the 4^th respondent has issued a notice to the writ petitioner to remove the encroachment alleged to have been made by the writ petitioner in the 5^th respondent's property.

¶24

A perusal of the impugned orders in the writ petition, namely 26.03.2015 and 03.06.2015 clearly indicate that there is an allegation that

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015

¶28

the petitioner has encroached upon the private property of the 5^th respondent herein. The official respondents cannot invoke their statutory

¶29

power, for removal of any alleged encroachment in a private property. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submits that he had given representation to the 1^st respondent only for the removal of unauthorized construction made by the writ petitioner. However, the said prayer is not reflected in the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 and 4 herein. In case, if the 5^th respondent is aggrieved over any unauthorized construction put up by the writ petitioner, he is at liberty to initiate independent action.

¶31

With this liberty, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶32

01.12.2022

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶34

gbg

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015

¶38

¶39

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶40

2.The Block Development Officer (E.P), Panchayat Union, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶41

3.The Tahsildar, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.

¶42

4.The President, Rangiyam Panchayat, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkotti District.

¶43

4/5

¶44

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

¶45

W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015

¶46

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶47

gbg

¶48

Order made in W.P(MD)No.9739 of 2015

¶49

Dated: 01.12.2022

¶50

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

A. Thangamalai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Thangamalai 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

S.Rajkumar, Vs the Executive Engineer Cum

K.Raja Vs the Executive Engineer Cum

G. Rajaprabhu. Vs Elamurugan

Puvaneswari, Vs the District Collector

S.Madhankumar Vs Manonmaniyam Sundaranar

R.Karmegam, Vs the Commissioner