Disposed

P.Mani v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Aug 2024WP/22903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tahsildar to remove encroachments obstructing the petitioner's access to his property within twelve weeks, following a communication from the Tahsildar seeking time to act under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to remove encroachments and restore access to the petitioner's property within 12 weeks.

P.Mani Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.D. KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶8

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶9

P.Mani ... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Hosur-635 109, Krishnagiri District.

¶13

3.The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur-635 109, Krishnagiri District.

¶14

4.Mrs.Suriya

¶15

5.Mr.Babu ...Respondents

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER:

¶20

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 5 for their illegalities under Section 128 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 by removing obstructions in the public pathway/Road in S.No.589/3, situated at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 to ensure the usage of the pathway/Road by the petitioner in S.No.589/3 for this access and enter in to his property and pass orders.

¶21

For the Petitioner :Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for Mr.Ragul Kousik

¶22

For the Respondents :Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader Assisted by Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr.T.Balaji Standing Counsel for third respondent

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶25

The writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 5 for their illegalities under Section 128 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 by removing obstructions in the public pathway/Road in S.No.589/3, situated at

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶29

Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 to ensure the usage of the pathway/Road by the petitioner in S.No.589/3 for this access and enter into his property.

¶30

A communication dated 14.08.2024 has been addressed by the Tahsildar, Hosur to the learned Government Pleader, wherein it is stated that land in S.No.589/3, situated at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District is classified as Arasu poromboke (Mesal tharai, grazing land). It is further stated in the said instructions that the fourth respondent has encroached upon 700 square feet of the subject land and constructed a compound wall, which according to the petitioner has blocked the ingress and engress of the petitioner's property. Hence, the Tahsildar seeks time to take action to remove the said encroachment. The said communication is taken on record.

¶31

In view of the above communication, the respondent Tahsildar

¶32

is directed to take necessary action for removal of the said encroachment by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act, after providing

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶36

opportunities to the parties concerned. The said exercise shall be completed

¶37

within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶38

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.24941 of 2024

¶40

is closed.

¶41

(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B., J.) 14.08.2024

¶42

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No mrn

¶43

To 1.The District Collector,

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶47

Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.

¶48

2.The Tahsildar, Hosur Taluk, Hosur-635 109, Krishnagiri District.

¶49

3.The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur-635 109, Krishnagiri District.

¶50

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

¶53

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶54

P.B. BALAJI, J.

¶55

(mrn)

¶56

WP No.22903 of 2024

¶57

14.08.2024

¶58

6/6

¶59

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

P.Mani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mani 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

K.Shanbagavalli Vs . the Revenue Divisional Officer

Puja Kumari Vs the Union of India

R.Poyyamozhi Vs The principal Secretary to Government

A.Deepa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs K Ariyarasan

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs M Narayanasamy