Disposed

Jeevantham v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC30 Jan 2023WP(MD)/1490/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice to remove encroachment issued without prior opportunity. The Court treated the notice as show cause, directed the petitioner to file objections within two weeks, and mandated the authority to pass merits-based orders within six weeks while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file explanation within two weeks; authority to pass orders on merits within six weeks; status quo maintained.

Jeevantham Vs The Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

Jeevanantham

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Tahsildar,

Palani Taluk,

¶13

Dindigul District.

¶14

2.The Block Development Officer, Palani,

¶15

Dindigul District.

¶16

3.The President, Kanakkanpatti Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Ou.Ka.No.2/2022, dated 12.01.2023 and quash the same as illegal.

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh

¶23

For R – 1 : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader

¶24

For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

Challenging the impugned order, dated 12.01.2023 issued by the third respondent, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶28

2.By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶29

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice has been issued by the third respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, as directed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21110 of 2018, dated 19.09.2022. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶30

2/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

¶33

4.Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the direction issued by this Court in W.P(MD)No. 21110 of 2018, dated 19.09.2022, notice has been served to the petitioner and if necessary, sufficient opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.

¶34

5.Considering the fact that the impugned notice, dated 12.01.2023

¶35

has been issued without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, as directed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21110 of 2018, dated 19.09.2022, the impugned notice is treated as show cause notice and the petitioner is directed to file his explanation / objection to the same, placing all the materials in support of his claims before the authority concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation / objection, the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo as on date.

¶36

3/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

¶39

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶40

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

[D.K.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.] 30.01.2023

¶42

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

¶43

Note:- Issue Order Copy on 31.01.2023.

¶44

¶45

1.The Tahsildar, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶46

2.The Block Development Officer, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶47

3.The President, Kanakkanpatti Panchayat, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶48

4/5

¶49

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

¶50

W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.1490 of 2023

¶54

DATED : 30.01.2023

¶55

5/5

¶56

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

Jeevantham v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevantham v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager/Authorized Officer Vs S.Sahayam

S.Saraswathi Vs the Sub Registrar

Rathinavel T Vs The District Collector

Packia Murugan.R Vs The Branch Manager

Murugesan Vs The District Collector

Kathiravan M Vs The Authorised Officer