Dismissed

Muhamed Yaseen.K, v. the Dist. Collector

Madras HC2 Jan 2023WP(MD)/7894/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for removal of encroachment on a pathway in an unapproved plot layout, the High Court held that since parties purchased unapproved plots, the dispute falls under civil jurisdiction. The writ was dismissed as the High Court was not inclined to direct removal of encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no orders directing removal of encroachment passed.

Muhamed Yaseen.K, Vs the Dist. Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.7894 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.7894 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.6026 of 2021

K.Muhamed Yaseen

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector,

¶12

Collectorate Office, Dindigul.

¶13

2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Block Development Office, Vathalagundu-624202,

¶14

Dindigul District.

¶15

3.The Tahisldar, Taluk Office,

¶16

Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.7894 of 2021

¶20

4.The President,

¶21

Kanavaipatti Village Panchayat, Kanavaipatti, Dindigul District.

¶22

5.M.Parameshwari

¶23

6.Jeyakumar

¶24

7.A.Muthuraman

¶25

8.Dhurai Marippan

¶26

9.Ravi

¶27

10.Balasubramani ... Respondents

¶28

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents 5 to 10 in public pathway in Survey No.60/1 situated at Kanavaipatti Village (Lenin Street, Gandhi Nagar, Vatlagundu) Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District and to construct a drainage afresh after removing the encroachment and to form a road.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil For R1, R3 & R4 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam For R5 to R9 : No Appearance For R10 : Mr.V.S.Kishokkumar

¶30

Page 2 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.7894 of 2021

¶33

ORDER

¶34

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

¶35

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to

¶36

direct the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments made by the respondents 5 to 10 in public pathway in Survey No.60/1 situated at Kanavaipatti Village (Lenin Street, Gandhi Nagar, Vatlagundu), Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District and to construct a drainage afresh, after removing the encroachment and to form a road.

¶37

2.According to the petitioner, he purchased the house property in Survey No.60/1B at Kanavaipatti Village (Lenin Street, Gandhi Nagar, Vatlagundu), Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District, wherein the respondents 5 to 10 are also having residential houses and encroached the common pathway. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the official respondents seeking removal of the aforesaid encroachment. Since the same has not been considered till date, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer.

¶38

Page 3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.7894 of 2021

¶41

3.In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that the lands in Survey No.60/1A1 originally belonged to one Veerayi Ammal and she had sold it away by apportioning the lands as several plots to many persons, including the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 10. The plot developer did not obtain any land approval to the aforesaid plots and there was no allocation effected either by the plot developer or by the land owners in favour of the revenue department with regard to the pathway in question. Therefore, the pathway in question will be treated as private pathway. Therefore, if there is any dispute arises, it can be treated as private dispute and the interested parties can avail their remedy in appropriate civil forum. Further, it is stated that the 8^th respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nilakottai, challenging the issuance of notice by the 2^nd respondent for removal of encroachments in the pathway in question and seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction and obtained an ex-parte decree.

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.7894 of 2021

¶45

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

¶46

view that since the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 10 purchased unapproved plots, if there is any dispute, it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. In view of the above, we are not inclined to pass any orders, directing the removal of encroachment in the pathway in question.

¶47

5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶48

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

[D.K.K., J.] & [R.V., J.] 02.01.2023

¶50

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

¶51

MYR

¶52

¶53

1.The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Dindigul.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.7894 of 2021

¶57

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

¶58

AND

¶59

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶60

MYR

¶61

2.The Tahisldar,

¶62

Taluk Office, Nilakkottai, Dindigul District.

¶63

3.The President, Kanavaipatti Village Panchayat, Kanavaipatti, Dindigul District.

¶64

W.P.(MD)No.7894 of 2021

¶65

02.01.2023

¶66

Page 6 of 6

¶67

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

Muhamed Yaseen.K, v. the Dist. Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhamed Yaseen.K, v. the Dist. 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

M.Mahadevan, Vs The Commissioner

S.Mahaboob John Vs The Executive Officer

Jayanthi Mala Vs The District Collector

The Secretary, Vs C.V. KavithaAbirami

G.Palani Vs the Chairman Tneb

Ezhilan Vs The Authorised Officer