Dismissed

T.M.Krishnamoorthy v. The Erumapalayam Panchayat

Madras HC12 Sept 2023WP/17920/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking removal of a compound wall alleged to encroach on a public road vested with the Panchayat. The Court found a dispute of fact regarding land ownership between private and public property, held it cannot act as a fact-finding authority in such disputes, and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to file a civil suit for relief.

What did the court decide?

Direction to remove the compound wall in S.No.55/3A5 and 55/3A2A of Erumapalayam Village was dismissed. No costs.

T.M.Krishnamoorthy Vs The Erumapalayam Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.17920 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.22203 and 22205 of 2020

¶7

T.M.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Erumapalayam Panchayat, Represented by The Executive Officer, Erumapalayam Village & Post, Erumapalayam, Salem – 636 015

¶10

2.The Block Development Officer, Salem Panchayat Union, Kollapatti Village & Post, Salem

¶11

3.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panangal Building, Chennai – 600 015

¶12

4.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem

¶13

5.The President, Erumapalayam Panchayat, Erumapalayam Village & Post, Erumapalayam, Salem – 636 015 ... Respondents

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to remove the compound wall constructed on 08.10.2020 across S.No. 55/3A5 & 55/3A2A of Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk and District, as per its mandate under Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirunarayanan For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the respondents to remove the compound wall constructed in S.No.55/3A5 and 55/3A2A of Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk and District.

¶21

According to the petitioner, the 5^th respondent has constructed a

¶22

Wall in the public road preventing the access of the petitioner from his property to the public road. Therefore, he sought for direction to the respondents to remove the compound wall constructed in S.No.55/3A5 and 55/3A2A of Erumapalayam Village, Salem Taluk and District, which according to the petitioner, is constructed in public road.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

¶26

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by taking this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent, submitted that at the time of executing the Gift Deed in favour of the 5^th respondent/Panchayat, the owner of the layout retained the portion of the land in which the compound wall alleged by the petitioner stands. Therefore, the compound wall alleged by the petitioner does not stand in the public road vested with the 5^th respondent/Panchayat. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that when the compound wall alleged by the petitioner stands in the name of the private property, the petitioner is not entitled to seek removal of the same by the 5^th respondent.

¶27

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition on a specific averment that the 5^th respondent constructed a compound wall in the public road vested with the 5^th respondent/Panchayat, so as to prevent the access to the road. Now, the 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the compound wall alleged by the petitioner is not standing in the public road and it is standing in a private property.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

¶31

In view of the disputed question of fact with regard to the ownership of the land in which the alleged compound wall stands, this Court is not in a position to issue any positive direction to the 5^th respondent to remove the compound wall. If the compound wall in question stands in the private property, it is for the petitioner to workout his remedy as against him by filing appropriate Civil Suit.

¶32

With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

12.09.2023

¶34

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

¶38

¶39

1.The Executive Officer, Erumapalayam Panchayat, Erumapalayam Village & Post, Erumapalayam, Salem – 636 015

¶40

2.The Block Development Officer, Salem Panchayat Union, Kollapatti Village & Post, Salem

¶41

3.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Panangal Building, Chennai – 600 015

¶42

4.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem

¶43

5.The President, Erumapalayam Panchayat, Erumapalayam Village & Post, Erumapalayam, Salem – 636 015

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.17920 of 2020

¶50

12.09.2023

¶51

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

¶52

6/6

T.M.Krishnamoorthy v. The Erumapalayam Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Krishnamoorthy v. The Erumapalayam Panchayat

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

R.Srinivasan Vs The Commissioner

B.v.Sridhar Battachar Vs The Assistant Commissioner / Executive officer

Venkataraman Vs The Commissioner

T.Ahilan Vs The District Collector

Jothi Raja.K Vs The Principal Secretary/Member Secretary

R.Jothi Vs the Joint Commissioner -I