Dismissed

K.Kumaresan v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Jun 2023WP/11145/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order by a single judge in the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking stay on disturbance of agricultural land. The court held that since the Tahsildar, Surveyor, and Village Administrative Officer had surveyed and demarcated the land belonging to the Highways Department in the presence of owners, the petition fails.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

K.Kumaresan Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.11145 of 2020 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.13589 of 2020 and 25703 of 2021

¶8

K.Kumaresan ... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶10

The Sub Collector, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶12

The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶13

The Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents, servants or any other persons claiming through them, from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner in respect of his agriculture patta land properties comprised in Survey No. 187/8 – 23.5 cents and Survey No. 187/9 – 47 cents situated at Keezhmoongiladi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, without following due process of law.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Vijayakumar for M/s. A.Ramalingam For Respondents : Mr. D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The writ petition has been filed forbearing the respondents, their men, agents, servants or any other persons claiming through them, from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner in respect of his agriculture patta land properties comprised in Survey No. 187/8 – 23.5 cents and Survey No. 187/9 – 47 cents situated at Keezhmoongiladi Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District, without following due process of law.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶24

The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the respondents are

¶25

attempting to interfere with the property belonging to the petitioner, which is a patta land. In view of the fact that the authorities have conducted survey, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶26

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying on the counter-affidavit dated 18.11.2020 filed by the 3^rd respondent, made a submission that the authorities have surveyed the land and identified the Highway land for the purpose of constructing a new culvert land. The authorities have not interfered with the land belonging to the writ petitioner. In this regard, paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit dated 18.11.2020, reads as follows:-

¶27

“ 4. It is submitted that the poor farmers and general

¶28

public of Melamoongiladi madhura Thaiyakuppam,

¶29

Keezhmoongiladi madhura Ambalathadikuppam,

¶30

K.S.Mandapam and Paaloothangarai sent

¶31

representations requesting to construct a new culvert at 1/8km of Lalpuram-Mandapam Salai so as free flow

¶32

of water during rainy season so as to avert damages to

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶36

the crops in and around the existing culvert which is in dilapidated condition. On receipt of such requests, this

¶37

respondent along with Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer surveyed the concerned lands in the presence of the concerned land owners and demarcated the land belong to the Highways Department. After identifying the Highways land in Survey No.245 to an extent of 0.15.0 Ares, the Highways Department took action to construct a new culver in Survey No.245. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this writ petition and obtained an order of status quo.”

¶38

In view of the fact that the Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District along with Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer surveyed the concerned lands in the presence of the concerned land owners and demarcated the land belonging to the Highways Department, there is no reason to consider the relief as such sought in the present writ petition.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.11145 of 2020 stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

No costs.

¶44

16.06.2023

¶45

skr Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶46

¶47

The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶48

The Sub Collector, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶49

The Tahsildar, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶50

The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶51

The Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.

¶52

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

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶55

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶56

skr

¶57

W.P.No.11145 of 2020

¶58

16.06.2023

¶59

Page 6 of 6

¶60

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

K.Kumaresan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kumaresan 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

A.Siva Subramanian Vs The District Revenue Officer

Sathiyamoorthy Vs The District registrar (Admin)

K.Venkatachalapathy Vs G.Ramachandran

M/S.Prp Granites Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Nagaraj Vs Selvam

Palladam Hi-Tech Weaving Park Vs State of Tamil Nadu