Allowed

R.Sangapillai v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Nov 2023WP(MD)/11587/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside a show cause notice and eviction notice issued to multiple petitioners. The Court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry providing an opportunity of hearing and to consider the petitioners case sympathetically within six months if they are eligible for land assignment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed; impugned notices set aside; direction to authorities to conduct fresh enquiry with opportunity of hearing and pass final orders within six months.

R.Sangapillai Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.11.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD) Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015 MP(MD) Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 & 1 of 2015

¶7

R.Sangapillai ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶10

2.The Junior Engineer, Public Works Department W.R.D. Ariyaru Basin Irrigation Section, Taluk Office Campus, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Krishnaryapuram Taluk, Karur District. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Show Cause Notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 23.06.2015 in his proceedings in Letter No. Ko5/2015/Encroachment Case/ dated 23.06.2015 and consequential impugned Eviction Notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated

¶13

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P(MD)Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015

¶15

23.06.15 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioners :Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondents :Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

¶17

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶18

These writ petitions are filed as against a show cause

¶19

notice issued by the second respondent/Public Works Department(WRD) followed by an eviction notice dated 23.06.2015 issued under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 (TN Act 8 of 2007), directing the petitioners to vacate from the lands in Balarajapuram Village as they encroached the above lands.

¶20

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶21

submits that the petitioners are pot makers and the subjects lands have been assigned to them by the Tahsildar in the year 1980 and patta also stands in their name. They have put up construction in that land and residing there for a long time.

¶22

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P(MD)Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015

¶24

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that these petitioners are in possession of the the lands in S.No.188/1,309, 311/27/188, 114 and 72A/1, 72-A/7 of Balarajapuram, whereas, they have encroached upon the land in S.No.302 and has put up some sheds. The learned Government Advocate further submits that a show cause notice was issued and enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, this eviction notice has been issued directing the petitioners to vacate from the encroachments.

¶25

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners claims that the petitioners have not received any notice before the impugned show cause notice and eviction notice.

¶26

5.Considering the rival submissions made and the fact that these petitioners are pot makers, the impugned notice in these writ petitions are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry afresh by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If the petitioners are eligible for an assignment and if

¶27

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P(MD)Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015

¶29

the authorities found that the petitioners are in possession and occupation of the subject lands for a long time and if the subject lands are non-objectionable lands, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically and pass final orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order.

¶30

6.With the above directions, these writ petitions are

¶31

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶32

09.11.2023

¶33

NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn

¶34

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P(MD)Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Karur District, Karur.

¶38

2.The Junior Engineer, Public Works Department W.R.D. Ariyaru Basin Irrigation Section, Taluk Office Campus, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District.

¶39

3.The Tahsildar, Krishnaryapuram Taluk, Karur District.

¶40

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P(MD)Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015

¶42

B.PUGALENDHI, J

¶43

vrn

¶44

Common Order made in W.P(MD) Nos.11587 to 11602 of 2015 MP(MD) Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 & 1 of 2015

¶45

09.11.2023

¶46

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Sangapillai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sangapillai 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

Shanmugam Vs the Assistant Engineer

Ammalkani, W/O.Seeni Nadar, Vs the Branch Manager

N. Ramachandran, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Ramar Vs the District Collector

Natarajan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

N.Adhikari Vs the District Collector