Disposed

Sivasingh v. The Joint Commissioner

Madras HC1 Oct 2024WP(MD)/23398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to remove encroachers' names from patta of Arulmigu Bhagavathiamman Temple land. The Revenue Divisional Officer had already initiated an enquiry; the Court directed completion of the enquiry and orders on merits within eight weeks after notice, without expressing views on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to RDO Nagercoil to complete enquiry and pass orders on merits within eight weeks after notice.

Sivasingh Vs The Joint Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.23398 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23398 of 2024

Sivasingh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Suchindrum, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

3.Bagavathiammal

¶13

4.Kani

5.Sahitha

6.Oliyatheen

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to remove the names of the encroachers from the patta of the Survey No.645/5 of Kanniyakumari Revenue Village in Agastheeswaram Taluk,

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

W.P(MD)No.23398 of 2024

¶21

Kanniyakumari District in respect of the property belonging to the Arulmigu Bhagavathiamman Temple, Kanyakumari as per the communication of the first respondent dated 04.07.2022 within the time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Abdul Kalaam Azad For Respondents : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh for R.1

¶23

Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan Additional Government Pleader for R.2

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The writ petition is filed for Mandamus directing the second respondent to remove the names of the encroachers from the patta of the Survey No.645/5 of Kanniyakumari Revenue Village in Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanniyakumari District, in respect of the property belonging to the Arulmigu Bhagavathiamman Temple, Kanyakumari, as per the communication of the first respondent dated 04.07.2022.

¶26

In view of the limited relief prayed for and proposed to be

¶27

granted in the light of facts brought to the notice of this Court, notice to the respondents 3 to 6 is dispensed with.

¶28

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

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P(MD)No.23398 of 2024

¶31

3 . At the outset, it is submitted by the learned Additional

¶32

Government Pleader that the second respondent has already initiated enquiry and that enquiry would be completed, in accordance with law. The same is acceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

4. In view thereof, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to complete the enquiry and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 6 and any other interested parties / stake holders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case and it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the case on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶34

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

01.10.2024

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.23398 of 2024

¶40

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶41

MGA

¶42

¶43

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶44

W.P(MD)No.23398 of 2024

¶45

01.10.2024

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

Sivasingh v. The Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasingh v. The Joint Commissioner

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.Rajeswari Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Annai Magalir Sangam Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

Sri Sakthi Annai Therasa Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

Sankar.v Vs The Commissioner

M/s. Bharath Biologicals Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise

K.Khader Oli Vs The Chief Executive Officer