Disposed

Seeni @ Srinivasan v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Apr 2023WP/10981/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding a Section 7 notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act within two weeks, while dismissing the broader prayer for maintaining peaceful possession without order on costs.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent directed to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders on merits within two weeks from the receipt of this order.

Seeni @ Srinivasan Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.10981 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Writ Petition No.10981 of 2023

Seeni @ Srinivasan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector Salem District Salem.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer Omalur

¶14

Salem District.

¶15

The Tahsildar Omalur Taluk

¶16

Salem District.

¶17

The Revenue Inspector Omalur Salem District. .. Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the third and fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation dated 15.03.2023

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.10981 of 2023

¶22

and subsequently, not to disturb the petitioner and his family members from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in S.No.44/9 at Kaamalapuram Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶23

For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶26

The petitioner seeks a direction to the third and fourth respondents to consider his explanation dated 15.03.2023 and not to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.44/9 at Kaamalapuram Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶27

The petitioner, a physically challenged person, and his family members are residing in the land in question of an extent of 0.0028.0 sq.m., which is classified as Tharisu poramboke land in the revenue records, for more than 40 years, by clearing the thorns and bushes and levelling the ups and downs in the land. He has obtained electricity connection and paying the charges regularly. He has also obtained

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.10981 of 2023

¶31

family card, voter id, Aadhar card. As patta has not been issued to the said land, the petitioner and his family members were seeking patta from the respondents.

¶32

On 11.03.2023, a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the respondents 3 and 4 on 15.03.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner has been directed to vacate the house by the fourth respondent and his officials. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

Learned State Government Pleader, placing on record the status report of the third respondent, submitted that the land in question is classified as Tharisu and that the petitioner is also owning lands. However, he submitted that the third respondent will consider the explanation given by the petitioner on 15.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders.

¶34

In view of the above submission, this writ petition is disposed

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.10981 of 2023

¶38

of directing the third respondent to consider the explanation given by the petitioner on 15.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, on the basis of the documents enclosed with the explanation or which may be produced by the petitioner , within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.

¶39

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 12.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶40

kpl

¶41

¶42

The District Collector Salem District, Salem.

¶43

The Revenue Divisional Officer Omalur, Salem District.

¶44

The Tahsildar Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶45

The Revenue Inspector Omalur, Salem District.

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.10981 of 2023

¶49

T.RAJA, ACJ, and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J

(kpl)

W.P.No.10981 of 2023

12.04.2023

Page 5 of 5

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

Seeni @ Srinivasan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seeni @ Srinivasan 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

P.Arumugam Vs The Government of Revenue

S.Shanmugapriya Vs M/s. Thausi Export

Dr.C.Balakrishnamurthy , Ph.D., Vs The Principal Secretary

Seenivasan Vs The Salem District Collector

M/S.Harmony Residences Private Limited, Vs R. Sivasankaran

P.Ashok kumar Vs The Secretary