Disposed

Siva Perumal .N v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Jan 2023WP(MD)/78/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reviewing an eviction notice issued by the Block Development Officer without providing an opportunity of hearing as required by a prior order of this Court. The court held the notice to function as a show cause notice and directed the authorities to give the petitioner a chance to file objections before passing a final order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was treated as a show cause notice; the petitioner was directed to file objections within two weeks; the respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within four weeks and rem

Siva Perumal .N Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.87 of 2023

¶9

N.Siva Perumal ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.

¶14

4.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶18

5.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Vadamadurai, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶19

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 of 5^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.2814/2019/Thi1 dated 25.11.2022 and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of 5^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.2814/2019/Thi1, dated 25.11.2022.

¶24

2 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

¶25

petitioner has challenged the impugned eviction notice issued by the 5^th respondent, on the ground that the respondents have not provided an opportunity

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶29

for making his objections, in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.13786 of 2020, dated 16.11.2022. In the aforesaid order, this Court has passed the following order:

¶30

“ 4 . Recording the above submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 10.06.2020, on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any encroachment in the place in question, the authorities shall remove the same, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and 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. No costs.”

¶31

He further submitted that the 5^th respondent, without providing such opportunity, passed the impugned order and hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶32

3. When this Court posed a specific query to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 that why the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13786 of 2020, dated 16.11.2022, has not

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶36

been complied with, he has informed that the aforesaid order was passed on 16.11.2022 and the copy of the said order has been received only on 15.12.2022. He further submitted that based on the communication of the Tahsildar, the 5^th respondent has passed the impugned order. The Panchayat Commissioner, who is present before this Court has also agreed that after giving necessary opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents will pass appropriate orders, in the light of the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.13786 of 2020, dated 16.11.2022.

¶37

4. Recording the said submissions, we are inclined to pass the following

¶38

order:

¶39

the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, passed by the 5^th

¶40

respondent is treated as show cause notice;

¶41

the petitioner is directed to file his objections / reply to the

¶42

same before the 5^th respondent, along with all supporting materials, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶43

1. after receipt of the same, the 5^th respondent shall consider

¶44

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶47

such objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

¶48

within a period of four [4] weeks thereafter; and

¶49

If there is any encroachment, the 5^th respondent is directed

¶50

to remove the same, without any further delay.

¶51

5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

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

¶53

09.01.2023

¶54

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm To 1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Dindigul District.

¶55

2.The District Revenue Officer, O/o. The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

¶56

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul.

¶57

Page 5 of 6

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶60

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

¶61

vsm

¶62

4.The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶63

W.P.(MD) No.78 of 2023

¶64

09.01.2023

¶65

Page 6 of 6

¶66

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

Siva Perumal .N v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siva Perumal .N 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

Ashwath Raja.P Vs The Commissioner

Suresh Kumar Vs The District Collector

Sri Krishnan Vs The District Collector

Gnanavel T Vs The District Collector

Ranjith Kumar Vs The District Collector

M/s. Sumitra and Sons Vs Bank of India