Disposed

Kannadasan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC17 Dec 2024WP(MD)/15283/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to remove a temple constructed by respondents 4 to 6, which encroached upon alleged government land. The court directed the concerned authority to consider a fresh representation within three months.对被挑战的表示未予考虑，法院指示相关当局在三个月内予以考虑。

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to petitioner to submit a fresh representation; respondent directed to consider same on merits with due opportunity within 3 months.

Kannadasan, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

Kannadasan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶11

Trichy District, Trichy.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶13

Thuraiyur Taluk,

¶14

Trichy District.

¶15

3.The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur,

¶16

Trichy District.

¶17

4.Ramar,

¶18

Panchayat Clerk, Muthaiyapalayam Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

5.Murugesan

6.Neelamegam

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the

¶23

Page 1 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

¶26

petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2020 requesting the 3^rd respondent to remove the temple constructed by the respondents 4 to 6 herein encroaching the “Sarkar Poromboke Passage” in S.No.129/40 measuring 0.06.75 Sq. Mt situated at Ammapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader

¶28

For R-4 to R-6 : Mr.N.Anandakumar

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Writ Petition has been filed for Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2020, requesting the 3^rd respondent to remove the temple constructed by the respondents 4 to 6 herein encroaching the “Sarkar Poromboke Passage” in S.No.129/40 measuring 0.06.75 Sq. Mt situated at Ammapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶31

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondents 1

¶32

to 3 on 24.01.2020 to remove the temple constructed by the respondents 4 to 6 herein encroaching the “Sarkar Poromboke Passage” in S.No.129/40 measuring 0.06.75 Sq. Mt situated at Ammapatti Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 2 of 5

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

¶36

Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶37

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶38

Since there is a considerable lapse of time after the earlier representation was made, the petitioner herein is granted liberty to give a fresh representation to the concerned respondent, ventilating his grievances, as expeditiously as possible. On receipt of such a representation, the concerned respondent is directed to consider the same, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6, as well as to any other person, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3) months from the

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

¶41

date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is

¶42

open to the concerned respondent to consider the same, on its own merits.

¶43

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There

¶44

shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 17.12.2024

¶46

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶49

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶50

3.The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

¶51

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

¶52

Page 4 of 5

¶53

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

¶54

M.S.RAMESH,J. and A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.

¶55

¶56

W.P.(MD).No.15283 of 2020

¶57

17.12.2024

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5

Kannadasan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannadasan, 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

S.Baskar Vs The District Collector

The Managing Director Vs Bharatiya Krishak Samaj

P. Ashok Kumar Vs The District Collector

Kamitha Beevi Vs the Dist.Collector

I. Murugan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.P.Muthu Raman, Vs the Principal Secretary to