Dismissed

K.Jeyapual v. the District Collector

Madras HC2 Aug 2023WP/11271/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a direction to the Divisional Engineer and Assistant Engineer to grant a No Objection Certificate enabling the Tahsildar to issue patta for land they claimed to be in occupation of. The Court held that highway land meant for road projects cannot be used for patta regularisation by encroachers as public interest overrides private occupancy. The writ petition was dismissed and pet

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to evict the petitioners in accordance with the procedures under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

K.Jeyapual Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.11271 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.2 of 2010 & 1 of 2012

¶7

1.K.Jeyapaul

¶8

2.N.Sathasivam

¶9

3.M.Dhamodaran

¶10

4.R.Ponnammal

¶11

5.J.Janaki

¶12

6.K.Ramasamy

¶13

7.P.Pappathi

¶14

8.A.Marimuthu

9.K.Devaraj

10.M.Mani

11.N.Meiyappan

12.V.Mani

13.R.Vadivelu

...Petitioners

-Vs-

1.The District Collector, Erode District.

¶23

2.The District Revenue Officer, Erode District.

¶24

3.The Tahsildar, Erode Taluk, Erode District.

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶28

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Erode District.

¶29

5.The Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Kodumudi, Erode District.

¶30

6.The Executive Officer, Vengampure Town Panchayat, Vengampure, Kodumudi (via), Erode District. ...Respondents

¶31

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4^th and 5^th respondents to grant No Objection Certificate to the 3^rd respondent so as to enable the 3^rd respondent to issue patta to the petitioners as per the communication letter dated 16.04.2010 in Na.Ka.No.8711.

¶32

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthil Kumar For R1 to R5 : Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate For R6 : Mr.R.Murali

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The learned Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection on

¶35

the ground that the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2010, seeking a

¶36

2/7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶39

direction to direct the fourth respondent to grant No Objection Certificate to

¶40

the third respondent for grant of patta to the petitioners, as per the communication of the Tahsildar, dated 16.04.2010.

¶41

The Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a miscellaneous petition to restore the Writ Petition, which was allowed on 11.11.2022.

¶42

The petitioners are in occupation of the highways land, which is

¶43

meant for expansion of road projects. Admittedly, the petitioners are encroachers seeking patta in respect of the highways land on the ground that they are in occupation for several years.

¶44

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 states that on account of encroachment, the authorities are not in a position to implement the road expansion project, which is causing prejudice to the public interest.

¶45

3/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are residing for long years and the Tahsildar, Erode has sent a communication to the District Collector in April, 2010, stating that the No Objection Certificate is to be obtained from the Highways Department and the case of the petitioners will be considered for grant of patta.

¶49

The Highways Department has not issued any such No Objection Certificate. More so, the encroached lands are required for the purpose of road expansion project, which is stalled on account of the interim order of status quo granted in the present Writ Petition. If at all the petitioners are homeless poor people, they are at liberty to submit an application to the competent authority for allotment of any land under any Government welfare scheme which is in force. Even in such circumstances, the eligibility of the persons are to be considered with reference to the terms and conditions of such welfare scheme. There cannot be any discrimination while considering the cases of the persons seeking allotment of lands at free of cost. However, the petitioners cannot encroach upon the highways land and claim patta, merely on the ground that they are in occupation for long

¶50

4/7

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶53

years. On account of such encroachment, the road widening projects are stalled and therefore, the respondents are bound the evict the encroachers and continue the project in the interest of public.

¶54

Public interest over weigh private interest at all circumstances and

¶55

in the present case, it is a highways land which is meant for road projects and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as sought for in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to evict the petitioners by following the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil

¶56

Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and implement the road expansion project for the benefit of the public at large.

¶57

With these observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

¶58

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

02.08.2023

¶60

Index:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes Speaking order hvk

¶61

5/7

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶64

¶65

1.The District Collector, Erode District.

¶66

2.The District Revenue Officer, Erode District.

¶67

3.The Tahsildar, Erode Taluk, Erode District.

¶68

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Erode District.

¶69

5.The Assistant Engineer, Highways Department, Kodumudi, Erode District.

¶70

6.The Executive Officer, Vengampure Town Panchayat, Vengampure, Kodumudi (via), Erode District.

¶71

6/7

¶72

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

¶73

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶74

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶75

hvk

¶76

W.P.No.11271 of 2010

¶77

02.08.2023

¶78

7/7

¶79

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

K.Jeyapual v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jeyapual 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.Ramesh Vs The Union of India

A.J.Vasanthi Asir Vs The District Collector

The Project Director Vs P.Jagadeesan

C.Shanmugam Vs The District Collector

M.Kannan Vs Inspector General of Registration

A.Rangasayee Vs The District Collector