Partly allowed

James @ Vediyappan v. Muniyan

Madras HC28 Apr 2023REV.APLW/70/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC. It modified the prior order to direct respondents to issue notice before surveying the land and removing encroachment, if any.

What did the court decide?

Review application allowed in part; respondents directed to issue notice before survey and remove encroachment only thereafter; connected WMPs closed.

James @ Vediyappan Vs Muniyan — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Review Application No.70 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Review Application No.70 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.14901 and 14902 of 2023

James @ Vediyappan

.. Applicant

-vs-

Muniyan

¶13

The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri.

¶17

The Inspector of Police, Kaverippattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶18

Kasi

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

Review Application No.70 of 2023

¶22

Chinnaraj

9. Settu

10.Murugesan

... Respondents

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 31.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.2116 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

¶27

For the Applicant : Ms.H.Pricilla for Dass and Viswa Associates For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for RR 2 to 6 * * * * *

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶30

The review application is filed seeking to review the order dated 31.01.2023, thereby directing the official respondents to conduct a survey of the land in question and remove the encroachment on the cart tract.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶32

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the

¶33

respondents come forward to issue notice before undertaking survey,

¶34

Page 2 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

Review Application No.70 of 2023

¶37

the petitioner would be able to present all the acceptable documents and evidences to show that the petitioner is not an encroacher.

¶38

In reply, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleaer, submitted that the authorities will issue notice before undertaking the survey and on receipt of the notice, if any representation along with supporting documents is given, the same will be perused and thereafter only action will be taken. Placing on record the above both statement, both parties are directed to act on them.

¶39

Therefore, this review application is allowed in part modifying the order dated 31.01.2023 to the effect that the respondents shall survey the land in question after issuing notice to the petitioner herein and all concerned parties and depending upon the survey, remove the encroachment, if any, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected WMPs. are closed.

¶40

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 28.04.2023

¶41

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra

¶42

Page 3 of 4

¶43

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

¶44

Review Application No.70 of 2023

¶45

T.RAJA, ACJ, and

¶46

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶47

(sra)

¶48

¶49

The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶50

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶51

The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶52

The Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri.

¶53

The Inspector of Police, Kaverippattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶54

Review Aplw. No.70 of 2023

¶55

28.04.2023

¶56

Page 4 of 4

¶57

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

James @ Vediyappan v. Muniyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James @ Vediyappan v. Muniyan

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

S.Sarojini Vs The Addl Chief Secretary

M/s.Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited Vs The commissioner of Land Administration

Malarvizhi Vs R. Thirumala

T.v.Amsalingam Vs District Collector

C.Selvakumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K.S.Shanmugam Vs Tamil Nadu State co-operative societies