Quashed

M.Kalaikannan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC27 Aug 2024WP(MD)/20367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged a notice requiring removal of encroachment from government poramboku land. The Court noted that the mandatory procedure under Section 28 of the Highways Act, 1956 regarding notice and consideration of explanations was not followed. The impugned notice was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned notice passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.07.2024. Writ Petition allowed.

M.Kalaikannan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.20367 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.20367 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.17272 of 2024

¶8

M.Kalaikannan ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Office, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Revenue Engineer, O/o. Revenue Engineer, Highways, Construction & Maintenance, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, O/o. Tahsildar, Vadipatti, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice passed by the 2^nd respondent in Ka.No.01/2024/A2, dated 23.07.2024 and quash the same.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.20367 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]

¶19

Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶20

2.Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the notice issued by the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, Madurai, requiring the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by him in Survey No.1075/1A, on the ground that the land in question has been classified as Government Porambokku road. Section 28 of the Highways Act, 1956, provides for a procedure for removal of encroachment. The Highways authority is required to give 7 days notice, calling for an explanation and if any explanation is received within the said period, the authorities obliged to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. Admittedly, the said procedure has not been followed.

¶21

3.Therefore, the impugned notice is quashed. The Writ Petition stands allowed. It is open to the authorities to seek to remove the encroachment

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.20367 of 2024

¶24

strictly in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed

¶25

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 27.08.2024

¶26

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Mrn/Sml

¶27

¶28

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. Revenue Divisional Office, Madurai.

¶29

2.The Revenue Engineer, O/o. Revenue Engineer, Highways, Construction & Maintenance, Madurai.

¶30

3.The Tahsildar, O/o. Tahsildar, Vadipatti, Madurai.

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.20367 of 2024

¶33

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶34

Mrn/Sml

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.20367 of 2024

¶36

27.08.2024

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_

M.Kalaikannan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kalaikannan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

The Commissioner Of Land Administration Vs C J John Robert

Sounder Ganesh Vs the District Revenue Officer

K.P.Gopi Vs M.Pradeep Kumar

Rev.D.Soundarapandiyan Vs The Correspondent

Muthuselvam .M Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by

S.Krishnan Vs The Chair Person cum District Collector