Dismissed

Siraimeettan v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jan 2023WP(MD)/1013/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for removal of encroachment on a common pathway. Court held it cannot go into merits without proper representation to competent authority. Directed petitioner to forward representation to President, Pappankulam, Thoothai, and the authorities to act after survey and notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation to competent authority within two weeks. Competent authority directed to consider same and remove encroachment after due process within six weeks.

Siraimeettan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.959 of 2023

Siraimeettan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶14

4.The Block Development Officer, Thirupuvanam, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶15

5.Karpagam

¶16

6.Mahalingam ... Respondents

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment such as pillar stone put up by the fifth and sixth respondents in Survey No.134/16, common pathway situated at Ladanendal Village, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.10.2022.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi

¶22

For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader

¶23

For R – 4 : Mr.M.Sarangan Standing Counsel

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

¶26

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment

¶27

such as pillar stone put up by the fifth and sixth respondents in Survey No.134/16, common pathway situated at Ladanendal Village, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.10.2022.

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made a representation to the respondents as early as on 10.10.2022 seeking removal of the encroachment made by respondents 5 and 6 in the aforesaid survey number, till date the same has not been considered.

¶32

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded the President, Pappankulam, Thoothai, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, who is the competent authority to consider his claim.

¶33

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the the President, Pappankulam, Thoothai, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, with a fresh representation enclosing all the details.

¶34

Considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation setting out his grievance to the President, Pappankulam,

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶38

Thoothai, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District, along with all the supporting documents, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the President, Pappankulam, Thoothai, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any encroachment as claimed by the petitioner, after issuing notice and conducting survey in the presence of the petitioner and all other parties concerned including the respondents 5 and 6, the authorities concerned are directed to take necessary action for removal of the same, after affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law, within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

[D.K.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.] 19.01.2023

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶44

¶45

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶46

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶47

3.The Tahsildar, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶48

4.The Block Development Officer, Thirupuvanam, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶49

Copy To:-

¶50

5.The President, Pappankulam, Thoothai, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶51

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

¶52

5/6

¶53

W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶54

D. KRISHNAKUMAR,J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶55

¶56

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.1013 of 2023

¶57

DATED : 19.01.2023

¶58

6/6

¶59

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

Siraimeettan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraimeettan 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

Pandiammal.v Vs The District Collector

T.Rajadurai Vs The District Collector

Kalamegam Vs The District Collector

Fathi Muthu Zahara, Vs M/s. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited

Pandiyammal Vs The Authorized Officer

Sunshine International Agritech, Vs The Finance Secretary