Disposed

Kaliyullah v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC25 Jul 2024WP/20995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition for mandamus restraining respondents from interfering with petitioner's property possession during road widening. Court directed respondents to measure and mark boundaries in petitioner's presence after issuing notice to ensure transparency before proceeding with work.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to issue notice to petitioner prior to measuring and marking boundaries, and to conduct the process in petitioner's presence.

Kaliyullah Vs the Secretary to Government — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:2829

¶2

W.P.No.20995 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

Dated: 25.07.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.20995 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.22950 of 2024

Kaliyullah

.... Petitioner

1.The Secretary to Goernment, Highways Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District.

¶13

3.The Principal Director, Highways Department, Sartharpatal Road, Guindy, Chennai.

¶14

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sankarapuram.

¶15

5.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sankarapuram.

¶16

6.The Zonal Engineer, Highways Department, Kallakurichi.

¶17

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

¶18

Pg.No.1/6

¶19

W.P.No.20995 of 2024

¶20

7.The Block Development Officer, Tirukoilur Town and Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶21

.... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of property measuring an extent of 2.43 (Two Acre forty three cents) situated in Survey No.2/1A, 3/3, 3/4 (Patta No.463) at Ja.Sithamur Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan (for R1 to R6) Additional Government Pleader

¶25

Mr.S.Ravichandran (for R7) Additional Government Pleader

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶28

accepts notice for R1 to R6 and Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for R7. Both are armed with necessary instructions to enable a final disposal of this Writ Petition, even at the stage of admission.

¶29

The petitioner claims ownership of the property in S.Nos.2/1A, 3/3 and 3/4 at Sithamur Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Kallakurichi District

¶30

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

¶31

Pg.No.2/6

¶32

W.P.No.20995 of 2024

¶33

('property'/'property in question') along with other legal heirs of his mother Ayesha bee. According to him, the property is adjacent to a road running between Sithamuthur Village and Thiruvarankam Road.

¶34

There is a proposal for widenining of that road in pursuance of which the respondents are encroaching upon their property. Despite a representation made by him to forbear and restrain them from encroaching upon the property, there is no response from the respondents. Hence, this Writ Petition seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property in question.

¶35

Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, has written instructions dated 24.07.2024 from the Divisional Engineer (H), C&M, Kallakurichi, a copy of which has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner, to state that the work of the road widening has, indeed, been taken up and has been entrusted to a private contractor. The representation of the petitioner dated 09.07.2024 has been received by R4 and based on the same, R4 has addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Thirukovilur on 12.07.2024 to mark the boundaries, particularly in the location where the property in question is situated.

¶36

In the said written instructions, R4 assures all concerned that no widening work would be carried out till such time proper measuring and marking of the boundary is made, particularly to ascertain whether there is any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.3/6

¶37

W.P.No.20995 of 2024

¶38

encroachment on private property. This is recorded. To add to this, the Court would require that such measures for measuring and marking of the boundary of the property in question be made in the presence of the petitioner.

¶39

Hence, let notice be issued to the petitioner prior to carrying out the activity of measuring and marking of the boundary of the property in question, such that there is transparency in the matter as well.

¶40

With this and as the grievance of the petitioner will be allayed by virtue of the above discussion and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

25.07.2024

¶42

Index : Yes / No Speaking order Neutral citations:Yes sl

¶43

¶44

1.The Secretary to Goernment, Highways Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶45

2.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District.

¶46

3.The Principal Director, Highways Department, Sartharpatal Road, Guindy, Chennai.

¶47

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

¶48

Pg.No.4/6

¶49

W.P.No.20995 of 2024

¶50

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sankarapuram.

¶51

5.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sankarapuram.

¶52

6.The Zonal Engineer, Highways Department, Kallakurichi.

¶53

7.The Block Development Officer, Tirukoilur Town and Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.5/6

¶55

W.P.No.20995 of 2024

¶56

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶57

¶58

W.P.No.20995 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.22950 of 2024

¶59

25.07.2024

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Pg.No.6/6

Kaliyullah v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaliyullah v. the Secretary to Government

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

East Coast constructions and Industries Ltd. Vs State of Tamilnadu

Akshanth Vikash Vs Joint Secretary

N.Benjamin Franklin Vs The Inspector General of Registration

R.Anand Vs the District Collector

S.Chandrasekar Vs the District Collector

Bvg India Ltd. Vs the Union of India