Disposed

R.Rajendiran v. the Inspector of Panchayat / the District Collector

Madras HC17 Dec 2024WP/37696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for mandamus to direct officials to remove encroachments on government land under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The State counsel informed the court that notices were issued and eviction was fixed. The court disposed of the petition, noting the State's stance and preserving the rights of private respondents.

What the court decided

AI extract

R.Rajendiran Vs the Inspector of Panchayat / the District… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶7

R. Rajendiran Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Panchayat/ The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District At Tiruvannamalai

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cheyyar Taluk, Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai District

¶11

The Tahsildar Cheyyar Taluk, Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai District

¶12

The Block Development Officer Cheyyar Panchayat Union Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

¶13

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai

¶14

The Inspector of Police Town Police Station Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai District

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶18

The Panchayat President Vadathandalam Village Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District

¶19

Murugan

¶20

Venkatesan

¶21

Indrakumar

¶22

Udhayan

¶23

Dilli

¶24

Dinagaran

¶25

A.Kathavarayan

¶26

Tamilvanan

¶27

Respondents

¶28

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to remove the encroachment made by the respondents 8 to 15 in Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Vadathandalam Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, pursuant to the notice issued by the 4^th respondent under Sections 7 and 6 of Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.08.2023 and reminder dated 29.01.2024, 04.03.2024, 26.06.2024, 16.09.2024 and 21.10.2024.

¶29

For petitioner Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan For RR 1to 3 Mr. M.S. Arasakumar Government Advocate For R4 Ms. M. Jayanthy Addl. Govt. Pleader For RR 5 & 6 Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan Addl. Public Prosecutor For R7 Mr. A.M. Ayyadurai - - - - - ORDER 2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶32

(made by M. SUNDAR, J.)

¶33

Captioned main 'writ petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a mandamus prayer and subject matter is 'land comprised in Survey No.222 in Vadathandalam Village, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District' ('said land' for the sake of convenience).

¶34

Learned counsel for writ petitioner, adverting to the case file, submits that said land admeasures 0.24.5 hectare and that it has been classified as eil ghij. Private respondents have encroached upon said land, proceedings have been initiated under 'Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905' (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905) ( 'said 1905 Act' for brevity) and after the private respondents were show caused under Section 7 of said 1905 Act, an order/notice under Section 6 of said 1905 Act has also been made but there is inaction and that has necessitated the captioned writ petition, is learned counsel's further say.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶40

Mr. M.S. Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate,

¶41

accepts notice for RR 1 to 3. Ms. M. Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for R4. Mr. A. Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice for RR 5 and 6. Mr.A.M. Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for R7.

¶42

Learned State counsel submits, on instructions, that the show cause notice under Section 7 of said 1905 Act is dated 09.11.2023 and after being show caused, a notice / order under Section 6 of said 1905 Act has been made on 20.11.2023. Learned State counsel submits that Section 6 notice/order dated 20.11.2023 has become final. In other words, learned State counsel submits that the Section 6 notice/order has been given legal quietus by the persons against whom said notice/order has been made. It is also submitted dates were fixed for eviction on earlier occasions but eviction could not be carried out owing to multiple reasons. Now, tomorrow (18.12.2024) has been fixed as date for eviction, is learned State counsel's further say.

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶46

Owing to the stated position of the learned State counsel, presence of private respondents is not imperative for disposal of the captioned main WP. However, as a matter of abundant caution, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of private respondents, viz ., RR 8 to 15 will stand preserved. This means that if they are resorting to any remedy available to them under law, the same will proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order. In this view of the matter, main WP is taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

¶47

This Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the captioned main WP recording the stated position of the learned State counsel. To be noted, when we refer to 'State counsel', it is a reference in plural, i.e., we are referring to all the four counsel before us, viz ., Mr.M.S.Arasakumar, learned Government Advocate for RR 1 to 3, Ms.M. Jayanthi, learned Additional Government Pleader for R4, Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for RR 5 and 6 and Mr. A.M. Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate for R7.

¶48

Captioned WP is disposed of as closed in the aforesaid

¶49

manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

(M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 17.12.2024

¶51

Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No cad

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P. No.37696 of 2024

¶55

M. SUNDAR, J.

¶56

		and
		K. RAJASEKAR, J.
To:		cad
1.	The Inspector of Panchayat/ The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District At Tiruvannamalai
2.	The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Col O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cheyyar Taluk, Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai District	lector
3.	The Tahsildar Cheyyar Taluk, Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai District	W.P. No.37696 of 2024
4.	The Block Development Officer Cheyyar Panchayat Union Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District
5.	The Deputy Superintendent of Police Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai
6.	The Inspector of Police Town Police Station Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai District	17.12.2024

¶57

6/6

¶58

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

R.Rajendiran v. the Inspector of Panchayat / the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R.Rajendiran v. the Inspector of Panchayat / the District 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

R.Sankar Vs the District Collector

E.L.Mathews Vs the Commissioner

P.Krishnasamy Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

V.Jayaprakash Vs the District Collector of

S.Arumugam, Vs The State Human Rights Commission

G.E.Gnanadas (Senior Citizen) Vs the Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) (C and M)