Partly allowed

N. Damodharan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Sept 2023WP(MD)/20129/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The court set aside of the impugned order for violation of Section 7 notice requirements due to subsequent facts regarding a built fair price shop and water body status. The connected petition was closed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order under Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is set aside due to lack of notice under Section 7; writ petition disposed.

N. Damodharan, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 25.09.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.20129 of 2014 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶6

N.Damodharan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Trichy.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶10

3.The Block Development Officer, Panchayath Union Office, Thathayangar Pettai, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka. A4-4385-2013 dated 23.07.2014 passed by the 4^th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioner's enjoyment and peaceful possession in Survey Nos.30/1, 39/1 and 32 classified as Arasu Thoppu Poramboke, which is situated at Araichi Village, Devanur, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District, without following due process of law.

¶12

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

¶13

1/4

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.A.P.Muthupandian For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard both sides.

¶17

2.The petitioner challenges the impugned order passed under Section 6

¶18

of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It was not preceded by any notice under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. But the officials assisting the learned Additional Government Pleader informed the court that a fair price shop has already been constructed in S.No.32, Devanur Village and that it is now functioning. It is further stated that on account of the construction of the fair price shop, the petitioner's pathway rights have not been affected. As regards the other two survey numbers, it is made clear that since it is a water body, it has to be maintained as such. Even the respondents cannot put up any construction.

¶19

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

¶20

2/4

¶21

3.Recording the stand of the respondents, this writ petition is disposed

¶22

of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

25.09.2023

¶24

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No skm

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, Trichy.

¶27

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶28

3.The Block Development Officer, Panchayath Union Office, Thathayangar Pettai, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶30

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶31

skm

¶32

W.P(MD)No.20129 of 2014 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶33

25.09.2023

¶34

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

N. Damodharan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Damodharan, 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

Chinnamuthu @ R. Muthu, (Died) Vs the District Collector

M/S.Kasiyananatha Cooking Vs Tamilnadu Small Industries

R. Palaniammal, Vs the District Collector

R. Gopalthevar Vs the District Revenue Officer

R. Sundararajan, Vs the District Collector

M/s.Vasantham Catering Vs The Southern Railway