Disposed

E.Dhanapal v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC23 Sept 2024WA/2621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal and eviction case, reiterating a previous order directing possession recovery under the TN Land Encroachment Act. The court stayed the execution of demolition pending Supreme Court approval while reiterating a direction to pay legal aid costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is disposed of. Respondents are directed to file a status report by 03.02.2025. The direction to pay Rs.1,00,000 legal costs is reiterated to be complied with within one week.

E.Dhanapal Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WA NO. 2621 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-02-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

WA NO. 2621 of 2022

¶9

AND

¶10

CMP NO. 20846 OF 2022

¶11

E.Dhanapal Rep by Power Agent A.I.Sageer, S/o.A.K.Mohamed Iqbal NO.40, Old No.32, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600010. and 2 Others

¶12

Appellant(s)

¶13

¶14

The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009 and 5 Others

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

CMP NO. 20846 of 2022

¶17

E.Dhanapal Rep by Power Agent A.I.Sageer, S/o.A.K.Mohamed Iqbal NO.40, Old No.32, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600010. and 2 Others

¶18

Appellant(s)

¶19

¶20

The State of Tamilnadu

¶21

Rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009 and 5 Others

¶22

Respondent(s)

¶23

WA NO. 2621 of 2022

¶24

For Appellant(s):

¶25

Mr.O L V Ganesan For M/s.Ganesh And Ganesh

¶26

For Respondent(s): https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

For Appellant(s):

¶28

Mr.Ramanlal, Aag Assist By Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Agp For Rr1 To 5. Mr.C. Mohan For M/s.King & Partridge For R6.

¶29

CMP NO. 20846 of 2022

¶30

For Appellant(s): MR.O L V GANESAN FOR M/S.GANESH AND GANESH For Respondent(s):

¶31

MR.RAMANLAL, AAG ASSIST BY MR.T.ARUN KUMAR, AGP FOR RR1 TO 5 MR.C. MOHAN FOR M/S.KING & PARTRIDGE FOR R6.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Anita Sumanth J.)

¶34

This matter is listed under caption 'for filing status report' today.

¶35

The Writ Appeal has been disposed by final order dated 23.09.2024. The operative portion

¶36

of the order at paragraph Nos.47 and 48 are extracted below:

¶37

47.For all the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Even though this Court has expressed its concern and was originally intended to impose exemplary costs, dismisses the Appeal with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

48. It is now reported by the learned Additional Advocate General that proceedings have been initiated for eviction and possession is likely to be taken. Since this Court hs held that the land is a Government Poramboke, even in case the possession is not secured so far, the respondents 3 to 5 are directed to take possession, if necessary, by resorting to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The respondents 3 to 5 are directed to file a Status Report by 03.02.2025, so that this Court may pass appropriate orders if necessary.'

¶39

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

¶40

As against the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed a Special Leave Petition in SLP

¶41

(Civil) Diary No.4215 of 2015 which has been converted into Civil Appeal by condonation of

¶42

delay on 28.01.2025. The Supreme Court by order of even date has issued notice and has directed the respondents not to take possession of the property pursuant to direction contained

¶43

in paragraph 48 of the order of this Court. This is recorded.

¶44

As far as the direction contained in paragraph 47 for remittance of costs of a sum of

¶45

Rs.1,00,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority is concerned, we are

¶46

informed that the amount remains unpaid. The direction is reiterated, to be complied with

¶47

within a period of one week from today, Memo of compliance be filed in the Registry.

¶48

(ANITA SUMANTH J.) (C.KUMARAPPAN J.) 03-02-2025

¶49

¶50

WA NO. 2621 of 2022

¶51

¶52

The State of Tamilnadu

¶53

Rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009

¶54

The Special commissioner

¶55

and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600005.

¶56

The Collector

¶57

Kancheepuram District. Kancheepuram.

¶58

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District.

¶59

The Tahsildar

¶60

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

¶61

Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶62

The Cheif Executive Officer

¶63

Contonment Board, St.Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram, Chennai 600 019.

¶64

CMP NO. 20846 of 2022

¶65

The State of Tamilnadu

¶66

Rep by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009

¶67

The Special commissioner

¶68

and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600005.

¶69

The Collector

¶70

Kancheepuram District. Kancheepuram.

¶71

The District Revenue Officer Kancheepuram District.

¶72

The Tahsildar Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶73

The Cheif Executive Officer

¶74

Contonment Board, St.Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram, Chennai 600 019.

¶75

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

E.Dhanapal v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Dhanapal v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

V. Vidya Vs Union of India

Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs M/s.Thiripra Chits Private Limited

V.S.Villivakkam Velu Vs Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. Pvt. Ltd.

S.R.Jangid IPS Vs v. Vidya

S. Subramanian Vs the Official Liquidator

M.Ranjani Vs R. Usha Rani