Disposed

Samsathbee v. the Districtd Collector

Madras HC22 Dec 2023WP/36235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 directed the petitioner to file for stay before the District Collector within three days. The court maintained status quo for fifteen days pending the Collector's decision, then disposed of the petition without a decision on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file stay application within 3 days; status quo maintained for 15 days.

Samsathbee Vs the Districtd Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.36235 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

WP No.36235 of 2023

Samsathbee

: Petitioner

versus

1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, Dharmapuri District

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶15

5.The Revenue Inspector, Harur, Dharmapuri District : Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 4^th respondent under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 12.12.2023 and to quash the same.

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr.Paramasivadoss for Mr.J.Pradeep

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No.36235 of 2023

¶21

For the Respondents

¶22

: Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

We have heard Mr.Paramasivadoss, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The petitioner is challenging the order under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Collector under Section 10 of the Act of 1905. However, now the Tahsildar has directed eviction.

¶28

The petitioner shall file an application for stay in the appeal filed by him within three days from today. In case such an application is filed, the District Collector shall decide the application for stay,

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

WP No.36235 of 2023

¶32

expeditiously, within fifteen days from the date of application. For a period of fifteen days from today, status quo as on date with regard to the writ property be maintained. However, thereafter, the parties would be governed by the orders passed by the District Collector.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.36226 of 2023 is closed.

¶34

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 22.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶35

¶36

1.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District

¶37

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District

¶38

3.The R.D.O., Harur, Dharmapuri District

¶39

4.The Tahsildar, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District

¶40

5.The Revenue Inspector, Harur, Dharmapuri District

¶41

Page 3 of 4

¶42

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

¶43

WP No.36235 of 2023

¶44

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶45

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(tar)

WP No.36235 of 2023

22.12.2023

Page 4 of 4

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

Samsathbee v. the Districtd Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samsathbee v. the Districtd 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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Selvi Arokia Mary

P.Suresh Vs the District Collector

The Member Secretary Vs the Registrar

Govindaraju Vs Shriram Finance Limited

Chandra Vs the Branch Manager

Velliyangiri Vs the District Collector