Dismissed

Tamilarasi v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Feb 2023WP(MD)/2275/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging encroachment proceedings. The petition, filed against eviction without due process, was rejected because the petitioner failed to file objections to a notice directed under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Tamilarasi Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2275 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.2275 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.2058 of 2023

Tamilarasi

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector,

¶12

Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶13

2.The Tahsildar,

¶14

Thiruchuli Taluk Office,

¶15

Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

3.The Village Administrative Officer,

¶17

Veeracholam Village, Thiruchuli Taluk,

¶18

Virudhunagar District.

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD) No.2275 of 2023

¶22

4.The Panchayat President,

¶23

Veeracholam Panchayat,

¶24

Veeracholam Village,

¶25

Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶26

5.Ganesan ... Respondents

¶27

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to resort to evict the petitioner without following the due process as directed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.24599 of 2022, dated 28.10.2022.

¶28

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Sudha Rani For R1 to R4 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader

¶29

ORDER

¶30

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 not

¶32

to evict the petitioner without following the due process as directed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24599 of 2022, dated 28.10.2022.

¶33

Page 2 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.2275 of 2023

¶36

2.K.Balasubramani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to the 5 th respondent is dispensed with.

¶37

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

¶38

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, on instructions, submitted that the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 18.10.2022, directed the Block Development Officer, Narikudi to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner in Survey No.368/10. Since no action has been taken, the 2 nd respondent has served a notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to the petitioner, on 19.01.2023, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment in question, in the light of the directions issued by this Court dated 28.10.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.24599 of 2022. Without challenging the same, the

¶39

Page 3 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.2275 of 2023

¶42

petitioner has filed this Writ Petition only by enclosing the copy of the notices issued by the 4 th respondent dated 02.11.2022 and 30.12.2022. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be rejected on the aforesaid ground.

¶43

5.We are also in agreement with the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 19.01.2023 issued by the 2 nd respondent, she ought to have made her objections to the said notice. However, she has not made any objections to the notice dated 19.01.2023. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

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

¶45

06.02.2023

¶46

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

¶47

MYR

¶48

Page 4 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.(MD) No.2275 of 2023

¶51

¶52

1.The District Collector,

¶53

Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶54

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk Office,

¶55

Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶56

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Veeracholam Village, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶57

4.The Panchayat President, Veeracholam Panchayat,

¶58

Veeracholam Village,

¶59

Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶60

Page 5 of 6

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD) No.2275 of 2023

¶63

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶64

MYR

¶65

W.P.(MD)No.2275 of 2023

¶66

06.02.2023

¶67

Page 6 of 6

¶68

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

Tamilarasi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilarasi 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

Jayanthi Mala Vs The District Collector

Rajkumar a Vs The District Collector

Pugalenthi G Vs M/s. Axis Bank Ltd.

Mohamed Muhibullah Vs M/s.Cholamandalam Investment

Senthilvel.S Vs The Authorised Officer

Murugan Vs The Regional Manager