Disposed

Muthukaruppan v. The Thasildar

Madras HC22 Dec 2023WP(MD)/31089/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 266 seeking to quash a notice from the Village President to stop construction, the Madurai Bench observed that the petitioner was in possession via a Grama Natham Patta issued by the Tahsildar. The Court noted the dispute over land classification as a factual position it would not interfere with but directed the petitioner to follow the legal procedure for removal

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was granted liberty to follow the legal procedure for removal of encroachment. First respondent to take action after hearing the petitioner.

Muthukaruppan Vs The Thasildar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.26645 of 2023

Muthukaruppan

...Petitioner

.vs.

1.The Tahsildar, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶12

2.The President, Nochipatti, T.Kudalur Village, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District. ...Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 266 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the second respondent dated Nil.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu For R1 :Mr.T.Amjat Khan Government Advocate For R2 :Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023

¶18

**ORDER *********

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J. ]

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned notice issued by the second respondent / The President, Nochipatti Village.

¶21

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he has been issued with Grama Natham Patta and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. The said patta has been issued by the Tahsildar concerned, however, in and by an un-dated notice, the second respondent has called upon the petitioner to stop further constructions in the property and warned the writ petitioner that further action would be taken if the writ petitioner continues the construction.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Tahsildar is the competent authority to take action and the impugned communication issued by the second respondent may be treated as report on which the first respondent would take action in accordance with law.

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023

¶26

According to the writ petitioner, it is a Grama Natham. The patta

¶27

was in his favour. According to the first respondent, the petition mentioned property is the Government Poramboke and the petitioner has encroached the Government Poramboke and constructed the building.

¶28

Since it is the factual position, we have not interfered with,

¶29

however, he has to follow the procedure for removal of encroachment.

¶30

The writ petition is ordered accordingly with liberty to the first

¶31

respondent to take action in accordance with law after hearing the writ petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

Index:Yes/No [T.K.R.,J.] [P.B.B.,J.] Internet:Yes/No 22.12.2023 NCC:Yes/No am

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023

¶36

¶37

1.The Tahsildar, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶38

2.The President, Nochipatti, T.Kudalur Village, Gujiliamparai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023

¶42

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J. AND P.B.BALAJI,J.

¶43

¶44

W.P(MD)No.31089 of 2023

¶45

22.12.2023

¶46

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

Muthukaruppan v. The Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukaruppan v. The Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager, Vs S. Sadique Akmal

The Branch Manager, Vs Boonachellam

R.Ganesh Kumar, Vs B.Akilandeshwari

Meenal Vs Divisional Manager

J. Kingston Samuel, Vs R. Jacinth Christabel

Sankara Subramanian, Vs Sivalekshmi Alias Sheela