Dismissed

K. Karutharasu, v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Jan 2023WP(MD)/13902/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a notification granting permission for constructing a community hall on land where they claimed title. The High Court held that as the communication stated land belongs to a third respondent, the proper remedy lies with revenue authorities for title rectification, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioner at liberty to approach appropriate authorities to redress grievances.

K. Karutharasu, Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :03.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2012

¶7

1.Karutharasu

¶8

2.Susila

¶9

3.Kavithasan

¶10

4.Kavitha

¶11

5.Swetha

¶12

6.Inyavan ... Petitioners (P2 to P6 are substituted vide Court order dated 16.08.2022 in W.M.P. (MD).No.12992 of 2022 in W.P.(MD).No.13902 of 2012 by RVJ)

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1.The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶15

2.Special Tashildar, (Ni.A), Schedule Tribe Welfare Office-1, Madurai.

¶16

3.Secretary, Ambedkar Parayar Uravinmurai, Palamedu, Madurai.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012

¶21

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned notification in Na.Ka.No.558/2012/A, dated 02.08.2012, on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and further forbearing the respondents from attempting to illegally acquire the petitioner's property under S.No.903/61, Palamedu Village, Vadipatti Circle, Madurai District.

¶22

For Petitioner :Mr.K.R.Laxman

¶23

For Respondents :Ms.D.Farjana Ghowshia Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 :Mr.R.Bharath for R3

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed challenging the alleged order

¶26

passed by the 2^nd respondent herein and further forbearing the respondents from attempting to illegally acquire the petitioner's property under S.No. 903/61, Palamedu Village, Vadipatti Circle, Madurai District.

¶27

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land in

¶28

Survey No.903/61 at Palamedu Village, Vadipatti Circle, Madurai District measuring an extent of 877.5 Sq.Ft. While so, the respondents 3 to 6 had Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012

¶31

tried to encroach upon his property and therefore, he was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.91 of 2006, before the District Munsif Court, Madurai. The said suit has been decreed in his favour by granting a permanent injunction. Having come to the knowledge that there is an attempt to construct a marriage hall in his property, the petitioner had made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and inspite of the said representation, the petitioner's possession was sought to be disturbed. Hence, again on 19.07.2012, he had made a representation to the 2^nd respondent espousing his grievances. The 2^nd respondent, by the impugned order dated 07.08.2012, had informed the petitioner that the land in Survey No.903/61, is registered under the name of the 3^rd respondent only and permission has been accorded to construct the community hall, which is under challenge. Therefore, he would contend that when the petitioner is supported by a decree, the 2^nd respondent ought not to have permitted construction of a community hall in the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶32

3.Countering his argument, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondent had disputed the title of the

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012

¶36

petitioner's property. It was further contended that the land in Survey No. 903/61, Palamedu Village, was handed over to TAHDCO for carrying out the Government Welfare measures by constructing a new community hall. The suit filed by the petitioner would not be in any support and will not bind the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

4.I have considered the submission made by the counsel on either

¶38

side.

¶39

5.The alleged impugned order is a communication, intimating the petitioner that the land in Survey No.903/61 of Palamedu Village, stands in the name of the 3^rd respondent and therefore, permission has been granted to construct a community hall in the said place, for the benefit of the public. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of planning permission, he will have to approach the appropriate authority, challenging the same. He had not approached the revenue authorities and from the impugned communication, it has been categorically stated that the land stands in the name of the 3^rd respondent. When that be so, the petitioner should have to approach the

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012

¶43

revenue authorities for rectification of the same, based upon the proceedings of the Civil Court. When that be so, there is no purpose for challenging the communication.

¶44

6.In view of the same, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶45

However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities to redress his grievances. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

03.01.2023

¶47

Index : Yes / No

¶48

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn

¶49

¶50

1.The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶51

2.Special Tashildar, (Ni.A), Schedule Tribe Welfare Office-1, Madurai.

¶52

3.Secretary, Ambedkar Parayar Uravinmurai, Palamedu, Madurai.

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012

¶56

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶57

sbn

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.13902 of 2012 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2012

¶59

03.01.2023

¶60

Page 6 of 6

¶61

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

K. Karutharasu, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Karutharasu, 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

S.Senthilkumar Vs the Chief Information Commissi

Ibramisa, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Peter Raj Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

K.Jagatha, Vs the District Collector

A. Mohamed Ashique Mustafa, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Thangaraj, Vs the District Revenue Officer