Disposed

Sevugaperumal.G v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC11 Jan 2023WP(MD)/647/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under Article 226 regarding encroachment on 'salai poramboke'. Court disposed of the petition by directing removal of encroachment on public land but dismissed prayer regarding private land as a civil dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to take action for removal of encroachment in S.No.578 but directed not to interfere in the private property S.No.572.

Sevugaperumal.G Vs The Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.647 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.647 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.652, 653 & 655 of 2023

¶7

G.Sevugaperumal ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Tahsildhar, Peraiyur Taluka,

¶10

Madurai District.

¶11

2.The Executive Officer,

¶12

Elumalai Town Panchayat,

¶13

Ward No.7, Perumalapatti Road,

¶14

Elumalai.

¶15

3.Nattathi Nadar Uravinmurai, Reg No.45/2013,

¶16

Through its Secretary, Mr.N.Jeyabal.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.182/2022 dated 26.12.2022 and quash the same as illegal.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Mareeskumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Thilakkumar

¶20

Government Pleader for R2

¶21

Mr.M.Vijayarathinam for R3

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order made by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.182/2022 dated 26.12.2022.

¶25

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

¶26

1/3

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.647 of 2023

¶28

2 . Heard Mr.E.Mareeskumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Balasubramani, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent, Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader for the second respondent and Mr.M.Vijayarathinam for the third respondent.

¶29

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

¶30

4 . The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent, due to personal enmity, has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.20727 of 2022, before this Court and this Court, by order dated 02.09.2022, directed the respondents therein to take necessary action for removal of the encroachment in S.No.704/4 in Elumalai Village, Periyar Taluk, Madurai District. He further submitted that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of the aforesaid property. He further submitted that S.No.578, is marked as 'Salai Poramboke' and the said land is coming in front of the petitioner's tea shop and the said place has been used only for the purpose of reaching the tea shop and therefore, the second respondent has passed the impugned order only with a mala fide intention and hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶31

5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has encroached the land in S.No.578, which has been classified as ' salai poramboke ' and therefore, the petitioner cannot any justification to have the possession in the aforesaid property and hence, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶32

6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent will take necessary action for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner in the 'salai poramboke'.

¶33

7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not claiming any right over the property in S.No.578 and further, he undertakes that the petitioner will vacate the tea shop in S.No.578, within a period of two weeks. He further submitted that this Court may direct the second respondent not to disturb the petitioner's possession in the private property in S.No.572.

¶34

8 . In the light of the submissions made by both parties, this Court, directs the second respondent to take necessary action for removal of encroachment, in the light of the impugned order dated 26.12.2022. In respect of (*)old S.No.572 is concerned, we are of the view that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent and therefore, they can seek their remedy before the competent civil Court. The 2^nd respondent shall not (*)Interfere https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.647 of 2023

¶37

in (*)old S.No.572.

¶38

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶39

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶40

(*)Corrected as per the order of this court dated 01/02/2023 Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

/02/2023 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶44

vsm

¶45

¶46

1.The Tahsildhar, Peraiyur Taluka, Madurai District.

¶47

2.The Executive Officer, Elumalai Town Panchayat, Ward No.7, Perumalapatti Road, Elumalai.

¶48

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-2347[F],SR-5546[F] dated 12/01/2023 )

¶49

+1 CC to M/s.E.MAREES KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-2513[F] dated 12/01/2023 )

¶50

+1 CC to M/s.E.MAREES KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-5959[F] dated 03/02/2023 )

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.647 of 2023 11.01.2023

¶52

km(CO) KB(16.02.2023) 3P 6C

¶53

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

¶54

3/3

Sevugaperumal.G v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sevugaperumal.G v. The Tahsildar

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

Johnsirajam.C Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat

Lenin.M Vs The Authorised Officer

Veeramani Vs The District Collector

Muthukrishnan. M Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Pandian Vs The District Collector

Murugan.M Vs The District collector