Disposed

R.Srinivasan v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Dec 2024WP/36811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of official respondents regarding encroachments in Kuttai Poramboke lands. The Court directed the second respondent (Tahsildar) to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 after giving an opportunity to alleged encroachers, relying on notices issued by the Panchayat President.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to initiate proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 after providing an opportunity to alleged encroachers.

R.Srinivasan Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶7

R.Srinivasan Panchayat President Padavedu Village Panchayat Polur Panchayat Union, Polur Taluk Tiruvannamalai - 606 905.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District.

¶11

The Tahsildar Polur Taluk Thiruvannamalai District

¶12

The Block Development Officer Polur Panchary Block Thiruvannamalai District.

¶13

The Revenue Inspector Santhavasal, Polur Taluk Thiruvannamalai District.

¶14

Page Nos.1/8

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶17

Ramalingam S/o.Shanmugam

¶18

Kalyana Raman S/o.Pannaram

¶19

Ezhilmaran S/o.Shanmuga Chettiar

¶20

Ragu S/o.Vasu

¶21

Pazhani S/o.Ponnusamy

¶22

Sivakumar S/o.Kuppan

¶23

Vijayakumar S/o.Subramani

¶24

Nedunchezian S/o.Annamalai

¶25

Saravanan S/o.Dhanapal

¶26

Babu S/o.Chotta Sayub

¶27

Muniyammal S/o.Chinna Kuzhanthai

¶28

Kamala S/o.Pillaiyar

¶29

Page Nos.2/8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶32

Sampath S/o.Annamalai

¶33

Yashodha S/o.Govindasamy

¶34

Selvamurthy S/o.Ramanujalu ... Respondents

¶35

Prayer :

¶36

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

¶37

praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to expeditiously remove the encroachments in the lands classified as "Kuttai Poramboke" and comprised in S.No.271/B, Padavedu Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District by following the due process of law.

¶38

For Petitioner : Mr.Prashanth Nadaraj B For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

[Order of the Court was made by K.RAJASEKAR, J. ,]

¶41

This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments in the lands comprised in S.No.271/B, Padavedu Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District which Page Nos.3/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶44

has been classified as "Kuttai Poramboke".

¶45

The writ petitioner is President of Padavedu Village Panchayat. As an Executive Authority, he has issued notices to private respondents, who have been arrayed as respondents 5 to 19 in the present writ petition for removal of encroachment in Kuttai Poromboke (water body) comprised in S.No.271/B, Padavedu Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶46

It is the case of the writ petitioner that alleged encroachers have not come forward to remove the encroachment on their own and hence, the writ petitioner sent communications to official respondents to initiate action against the alleged encroachers. Since no action was taken by the official respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶47

The learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that as per Section 131(2) of 'the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1994)' {hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}, the writ petitioner as a competent authority has already issued

¶48

Page Nos.4/8

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶51

notices to alleged encroachers seeking removal of encroachment in the said

¶52

land. He further submits that the encroachment is made in Kuttai (water body) and if the encroachers are not coming forward to remove the encroachment on their own, Revenue authorities has to initiate proceedings under 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' {hereinafter 'said 1905 Act' for the sake of brevity}. Though notices have been issued to alleged encroachers, they have not come forward to remove the encroachment is learned counsel's say.

¶53

Issue notice to official respondents i.e., respondents 1 to 4.

¶54

Mr.V.Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice for

¶55

official respondents 1 to 4.

¶56

Considering the limited scope of the matter, main writ petition was taken up in the Admission Board itself with the consent of both sides.

¶57

The learned State Counsel submits that under said 1905 Act, the

¶58

Page Nos.5/8

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶61

official respondents would take steps to remove the encroachment in the subject land and official respondents would proceed as against the alleged encroachers in accordance with law on the basis of notices already issued by the writ petitioner.

¶62

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on both sides, we direct the second respondent to initiate proceedings under said 1905 Act after providing an opportunity to alleged encroachers (private respondents) and act in accordance with law.

¶63

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 04.12.2024

¶65

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk

¶66

¶67

Page Nos.6/8

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶70

The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District.

¶71

The Tahsildar Polur Taluk Thiruvannamalai District

¶72

The Block Development Officer Polur Panchary Block Thiruvannamalai District.

¶73

The Revenue Inspector Santhavasal, Polur Taluk Thiruvannamalai District.

¶74

Page Nos.7/8

¶75

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

¶76

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶77

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

¶78

¶79

W.P.No.36811 of 2024

¶80

04.12.2024

¶81

Page Nos.8/8

¶82

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

R.Srinivasan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Srinivasan 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

A.Natesan Vs The Secretary

S.Karthick Raja Vs the Chairman

D.Thavamani Vs the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

K.Ramesh Vs the District Collector

K.Ramesh Vs the District Collector

G.Ravichandran Vs The Collector