Disposed

S.Muniyamuthu v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Dec 2024WP/35414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging encroachment of Government land in Survey No.73, Nallur Village. State counsel confirmed encroachment and action under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The court impleaded the jurisdictional Divisional Engineer as tenth respondent and directed show-cause proceedings against encroachers under Section 28(2)(ii).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to show-cause encroachers under Section 28(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act; WMP closed; no costs.

S.Muniyamuthu Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶9

¶10

W.M.P No.38299 of 2024

¶11

¶12

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶13

Mr.S.Muniyamuthu S/o.Selvarasu .. Petitioner

¶14

¶15

The District Collector

¶16

Cuddalore District

¶17

Cuddalore

¶18

The District Revenue Officer Cuddalore District

¶19

The Revenue Divisional Officer Sub Division

¶20

Viruthasalam, Cuddalore District

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 9

¶22

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶23

The Tahsildar

¶24

Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District

¶25

The Block Development officer Nallur Union Office Nallur Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District – 606 302

¶26

The Inspector of Police Veppur Police Station Veppur Taluk Cuddalore Taluk

¶27

The President Nallur Panchayat Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District

¶28

Mr.K.Ayyamperumal S/o.Kolanginathan

¶29

Mr.K.Katturaja S/o.Kolanginathan

¶30

The Divisional Engineer State Highways Department, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District .. Respondents

¶31

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

¶32

Page 2 of 9

¶33

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶34

(R10 suo motu impleaded vide this order)

¶35

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct 4th respondent to remove the illegal encroachment from the Government land in Survey No.73 situated at Nallur Village, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District to enable the petitioner and the public to use the road for agriculture purpose and pass order based on the petitioner representation dated 08.11.2023.

¶36

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Velu For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for R1 to R7 and R10

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

(Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.)

¶39

Captioned writ petition has been filed alleging encroachment in 'S.No.73

¶40

in Nallur Village, Veppur Taluk, Cuddalore District' [hereinafter 'said land'

¶41

for the sake of convenience]. To be noted, R8 and R9 (private respondents) are

¶42

alleged encroachers.

¶43

When the matter was listed before another Hon'ble Division Bench on

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 9

¶45

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶46

06.12.2024, the following proceedings were made:

¶47

Today, Mr.T.Velu, learned counsel for writ petitioner is before us.

¶48

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate submits that he accepts

¶49

notice for R5 to R7 also.

¶50

Learned State counsel submits, on instructions, that there is encroachment qua said land and that action is warranted under the 'Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002)' {hereinafter 'State Highways Act' for the sake of brevity}. This means that the alleged encroachers have to be show-caused inter alia under Section 28(1)(ii) of State Highways

¶51

Act and if any representation is received within the show-cause period of 7 days,

¶52

Authority or Officer concerned should pass final orders.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 9

¶54

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶55

As there is adequate safety valve for private respondents, with the

¶56

consent of both sides, main writ petition was taken up making it clear that all

¶57

the rights and contentions of private respondents are preserved when they are

¶58

show-caused.

¶59

The power to show-cause is vested in Highways Authority. The term

¶60

'Highways Authority' has been defined vide Section 2(13) of State Highways Act, Section 2(13) of State Highways Act takes us to Section 5(2) and as per

¶61

Section 5(2) of State Highways Act, it is jurisdictional Divisional Engineer. In

¶62

this case it is Divisional Engineer, State Highways Department, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District. Therefore, we implead Divisional Engineer,

¶63

State Highways Department, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District as R10 and Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R10 also.

¶64

Let the alleged encroachers be it R8 or R9 or any other encroachers be

¶65

show-caused under Section 28(2)(ii) of State Highways Act and let the

¶66

proceedings be carried to its logical end on its own merits and in accordance

¶67

with law. When we say logical end, we make it clear that R8, R9 and/or any

¶68

Page 5 of 9

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶71

other alleged encroachers would be show-caused under Section 28(2)(ii) of

¶72

State Highways Act. If any representation is received within the show-cause

¶73

period of 7 days, the Authority or Officer concerned, shall pass final orders. If

¶74

the final order is in favour of noticees, that would be the end of the matter and if

¶75

that not be so, further proceedings will continue and rights of R8 and R9 to

¶76

assail such final order is also preserved. For this purpose, all the rights and contentions of R8 or R9 or any other person, who may be show-caused, are

¶77

preserved. This is the safety valve we put in and therefore there is no impediment in captioned writ petition being disposed of in the Admission Board, when R8 and R9 are not before us.

¶78

Captioned writ petition disposed of in the aforesaid manner (recording

¶79

the stated position of the learned State counsel). Consequently, writ

¶80

miscellaneous petition is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to

¶81

costs.

¶82

[M.S., J] [K.R.S., J] 09.12.2024

¶83

Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order

¶84

Page 6 of 9

¶85

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

¶86

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶87

gpa

¶88

¶89

The District Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore

¶90

The District Revenue Officer Cuddalore District

¶91

The Revenue Divisional Officer Sub Division Viruthasalam, Cuddalore District

¶92

The Tahsildar Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District

¶93

The Block Development officer Nallur Union Office Nallur Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District – 606 302

¶94

The Inspector of Police Veppur Police Station Veppur Taluk Cuddalore Taluk

¶95

The President

¶96

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 9

¶97

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶98

Nallur Panchayat Veppur Taluk Cuddalore District

¶99

M.SUNDAR,J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶100

gpa

¶101

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶102

09.12.2024

¶103

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 9

¶104

W.P.No.35414 of 2024

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9

S.Muniyamuthu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muniyamuthu 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

Ganesh Vs the District Collector

C.Arul Vs the District Collector

G.Kumar Vs the District Collector

Kanchana Vs the Assistant Engineer

Subbamma Vs the Assistant Engineer

Rosiammal Vs the Assistant Engineer