Disposed

T.Krishnamurthy v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Dec 2024WP/9647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.No.9647 of 2021, the petitioner sought mandamus to remove encroachments blocking access to his house. The court found that the respondents had already removed the encroachment via a joint inspection and informed the petitioner of his access rights, leading to the disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no further orders required; no order as to costs.

T.Krishnamurthy Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

T.Krishnamurthy

... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Villupuram District.

¶12

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶13

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram.

¶14

4.The Tahsildar, Marakkanam, Tindivanam, Villupuram.

¶15

5.The Taluk Surveyor, Land Survey, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶16

Page Nos.1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶19

6.The Director, Highways Department, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

7.Latha

8.Munusamy

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, 1950 praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachment in the pathway made by the 7^th and 8^th respondents in S.No.6 of Thirukkanur Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District and to restore the pathway based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2021.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For R1 to R6 : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate For R7 & R8 : No appearance

¶25

Page Nos.2/6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus for directing the

¶31

respondents 1 to 6 to remove encroachments in land in Survey No.6 of Thirukkanur Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶32

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is having a house at S.No.3/4B of the Thirukkanur Village and the pathway leading to his house is situated in S.No.6, which belongs to the Highways Authority. The private respondents 7 and 8 have encroached the Government land thereby, the petitioner's access to his house has been blocked, hence, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

¶33

3.The respondents 1 to 6 were represented by Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate. Respondents 7 and 8/private respondents though served with notice and their name is also printed in the cause list, they have not entered appearance either in person or through counsel.

¶34

Page Nos.3/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶37

4.The learned State counsel has filed counter of 6^th respondent, in which, it is stated that based on the representations submitted by the petitioner, a joint inspection with the revenue authorities was conducted by the Highways Authority and they have surveyed the land not only for removal of encroachment in S.No.6 and also for access to the petitioner's house.

¶38

5.The counter of the 6^th respondent further reveals that as per the joint inspection, the encroachment in S.No.6 was found and the same was removed. Further, the access to the petitioner's house was also ascertained and the petitioner is not having any direct access to the Highway. However, he is having access only on the northern side. This information was also passed on to the petitioner.

¶39

6.Considering the limited prayer in this case for removal of encroachment, as submitted by the 6^th respondent, the survey has been conducted and encroachment in S.No.6 of Thirukkanur Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District has been removed and the

¶40

Page Nos.4/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶43

petitioner has also been duly informed about his right of access, we are of the view that no further orders in this matter is required and the writ petition

¶44

is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 02.12.2024

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector, Villupuram District.

¶49

2.The District Revenue Officer, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶50

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram.

¶51

4.The Tahsildar, Marakkanam, Tindivanam, Villupuram.

¶52

Page Nos.5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶55

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

¶56

rsi

¶57

5.The Taluk Surveyor, Land Survey, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶58

6.The Director, Highways Department, Marakkanam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶59

W.P.No.9647 of 2021

¶60

02.12.2024

¶61

Page Nos.6/6

¶62

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

T.Krishnamurthy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Krishnamurthy 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

G.Saravanan Vs The Registrar

Selvaraj Vs the District Collector

Selvaraj Vs the District Collector

V.Madhavan Vs the District Collector

M/S.Association of Greenwoods Community Vs the District Collector

Mohammed Ilyas Vs The District Collector