Disposed

Rajendran v. the Collector

Madras HC2 Sept 2024WP/25074/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought restraint on a proposed road and restoration of an Odai to its original width. The petitioner was found to be an encroacher himself; he undertook to remove his encroachment. The court disposed of the writ petition directing authorities to survey the land, invoke the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 against any encroachment, and conclude within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendran Vs the Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

Rajendran

.. Petitioner

1.The Collector, Office of Collectorate, Dharmapuri District.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶14

4.The Thasildar, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

5.The Village Administrative Officer, Puliyampatti Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 4 from putting up the road in Survey No.205/2B, Unisenahalli Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District in connection with the new proposal made by the fifth respondent and consequently direct the

¶17

___________ Page 1 of 5_

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

¶20

respondents 1 to 4 to restore the Odai situated in Survey No.205/2B to its original state of 60 feet by removing the encroachment made in the Survey No.205/2B.

¶21

For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 5

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶25

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 4 from putting up the road in Survey No.205/2B, Unisenahalli Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District, in connection with the new proposal made by the fifth respondent and to consequently direct respondents 1 to 4 to restore the Odai situated in Survey No.205/2B to its original state of 60 feet by removing the encroachment made in the Survey No.205/2B.

¶26

When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, on instructions,

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

¶30

submitted that the petitioner himself is an encroacher in respect of the land to an extent of 400 meters in Survey No.168/2. There are around eleven encroachers in all and the respondents sought two months time to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and remove the encroachments.

¶31

Inasmuch as the petitioner himself is an encroacher, we questioned his locus standi to file the present writ petition seeking removal of encroachments. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall remove the encroachment on his own, without any further notice. The said undertaking is recorded.

¶32

We direct respondents 1 to 5 to survey the land in question and invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, if any encroachments are found. If the petitioner has not removed the encroachment on his own, the respondent authorities shall take necessary action to remove the encroachment

¶33

___________ Page 3 of 5_

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

¶36

without any notice considering the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner before this court. The entire exercise shall be concluded by the respondent authorities within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

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

¶39

02.09.2024 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No sasi

¶40

To:

¶41

1.The Collector, Office of Collectorate, Dharmapuri District.

¶42

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶43

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶44

4.The Thasildar, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶45

5.The Village Administrative Officer, Puliyampatti Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

¶49

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.B.BALAJI, J.

(sasi)

W.P.No.25074 of 2024

02.09.2024

___________ Page 5 of 5_

¶54

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

Rajendran v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendran v. the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Panneer Selvam and 4 oters Vs Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.a.S..

S. Thangamani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S. Rajaiah Vs Director

V.Thiyagarajan Vs the Director

V.B.R.Menon, B.E.(Mech), Mba (Iima), Llb, Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Food Corporation of India Vs Lalu Naikkethavathu