Allowed

Murugan.M v. The District collector

Madras HC11 Jan 2023WP(MD)/651/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging an eviction notice issued under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Court quashed the notice due to jurisdictional error and directed issuance of fresh notices under the District Municipalities Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice under Land Encroachment Act quashed; fresh notice under Section 182 of District Municipalities Act, 1920 to be issued within 12 weeks.

Murugan.M Vs The District collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 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

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.657, 659 & 660 of 2023

¶9

M.Murugan ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.651 of 2023 S.Sekar ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.652 of 2023 M.Raman ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.653 of 2023

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

2.The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Singampunari, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents in all WPs

¶13

COMMON PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023

¶17

impugned eviction notice in Na.Ka.No.11/2020/A3 dated 26.12.2022 on the file of Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal.

¶18

In all Petitions :

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader for R2

¶20

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶21

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

¶22

The Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.11/2020/A3 dated 26.12.2022.

¶23

2 . Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶24

Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader, who takes notice for the second respondent.

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

3 .

¶28

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023

¶29

3 . By consent of both parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

4 . It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned notices issued by the 2^nd respondent invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is illegal and without jurisdiction and hence, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.

¶31

5 . The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the second respondent has wrongly issued the impugned notices under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, fresh notices would be issued under Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and necessary action would be taken for removal of encroachment.

¶32

6. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to issue fresh notices to the petitioners under Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu District

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023

¶36

Municipalities Act, 1920, and thereafter, take necessary action for removal encroachment, by following due process of law. Such an exercise shall be completed, within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

7. Accordingly, the impugned notices issued by 2^nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11/2020/A3 dated 26.12.2022, are hereby quashed and consequently, these writ petitions are allowed with above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 11.01.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶39

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023

¶42

¶43

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶44

2.The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023

¶48

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

¶49

vsm

¶50

W.P.(MD) Nos.651 to 653 of 2023

¶51

11.01.2023

¶52

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶53

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

Murugan.M v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan.M 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

Johnsirajam.C Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat

Lenin.M Vs The Authorised Officer

Veeramani Vs The District Collector

Sevugaperumal.G Vs The Tahsildar

Muthukrishnan. M Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Pandian Vs The District Collector