Allowed

N.Maharajan v. The Senior Section Engineer (Works)

Madras HC20 Jun 2024WP/7006/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the eviction notice issued by the South Western Railway because it was passed mechanically without first complying with the court order to issue notice and provide opportunity of hearing before considering encroachment proceedings over disputed property.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 12.01.2021 is quashed. Respondents are directed to issue a fresh notice and granting opportunity of hearing before measuring land and removing encroachments.

N.Maharajan Vs The Senior Section Engineer (Works) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.7006 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.7553 of 2021

¶7

N.Maharajan 2. G.Venkatesan 3. R.Shanthamoorthy 4. P.Shanmugasundaram 5. K.Vijaya 6. R.M.Jayaraman 7. R.Usharani 8. N.Arumugam 9. Sathyanarayanan 10. S.Elaiyaraja 11. Panjalai 12. B.Desinguraja 13. S.Pon Gnana Prabhakaran 14. E.Mehaseena 15. R.Arunachalam 16. T.Gnansekar 17. M.Muniraju 18. M.Narasiman 19. J.Rani Chinnathambi 20. C.Nagamani 21. O.A.Sunitha Bai 22. Subramanian Alagan 23. P.Kamala 24. J.Padmavathi 25. N.Savethri 26. Parasuraman 27. T.Ravi Chandran ... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

1/6

¶11

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

¶12

The Senior Section Engineer (Works), South Western Railway, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶13

The Divisional Manager, South Western Railway, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶14

The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur - 635 109.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in proceedings No.Nil, Eviction Notice dated 12.01.2021 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and to further forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's property in Survey Nos.91/B1, 91/B2, 91/B1B, 80/B, 80/D, 66/B1 and 93/C2.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.Sunny Sheed for M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Standing Counsel For Respondent 3 : Mr.N.Subbarayalu

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

2/6

¶21

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

¶22

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first

¶23

respondent dated 12.01.2021 thereby directed the petitioner to remove any construction made in the subject property belongs to Hosur Railway Station, failing which the entire construction will be removed.

¶24

All the petitioners had constructed their respective houses situated at the rear side of the Hosur Railway Station. According to the petitioners, those lands are their patta land and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past two decades. While being so, the respondents 1 and 2 intend to construct a boundary wall segregating their lands from the rest. None of the petitioners have any objection. However, boundary lines were drawn up and including the property of the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners submitted various representations and the same were not considered properly. Though, they were issued notice dated 21.09.2016 as such they are encroachers. Therefore, one resident comprised in S.No.68A/2B filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.37017 of 2016 and this Court passed order dated 08.11.2016 thereby directed the 2nd respondent to give notice to the petitioner along with the details regarding the alleged encroachment said to have been made by the petitioner on the railway land and proceed further in accordance with law. Till proceedings are initiated and concluded by the 2nd respondent,

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶26

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

¶27

status quo, as on date, shall be maintained by both parties.

¶28

On perusal of the impugned notice dated 12.01.2021 revealed that on the basis of notice dated 10.03.2016, the petitioners are directed remove the construction put up by them. This Court passed order in W.P.No.37017 of 2016 dated 08.11.2016, the respondents 1 and 2 failed to comply the direction issued by this Court and without complying the same the respondent mechanically issued order impugned in this writ petition dated 12.01.2021 thereby directed the petitioners to remove the construction put up by them in their respective land.

¶29

Therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 12.01.2021 issued by the 1st respondent is quashed. The respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, measure the railway land as per the revenue records and proceed to remove the encroachments if any in accordance with law.

¶30

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶31

4/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

¶34

20.06.2024

¶35

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No gvn To

¶36

The Senior Section Engineer (Works), South Western Railway, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶37

The Divisional Manager, South Western Railway, Dharmapuri-636 705.

¶38

The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur - 635 109.

¶39

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. gvn

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

W.P.No.7006 of 2021

20.06.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

N.Maharajan v. The Senior Section Engineer (Works)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Maharajan v. The Senior Section Engineer (Works)

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

P.Annadurai, Vs the Regional Passport Officer

M/s.Grand Oceana Beach resort Vs The Chairman

Annai Abirami Matriculation School Vs The Chairman

Ca.v.Venkata Siva kumar Vs Disciplinary Committee

S.S.Peter Subbu Reddi Vs Union of India

P.S.R.Sathiyamurthy Vs The General Manager