Disposed

Annadurai v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Dec 2024WP(MD)/28728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the non-consideration of a representation regarding alleged encroachment constituted a dereliction of duty. It directed the revenue respondents to consider the representation and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Annadurai Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD). No.28728 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

WP(MD). No.28728 of 2024

Annadurai

... Petitioner

The District Collector, Pudukkottai District..

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Monitoring Committee, Illupur Post and Taluk, Pudukkottai District..

¶12

The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District..

¶13

Veerammal,

¶14

Chinnathampi, ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents 1 to 3 remove the encroachment made by respondents 4 and 5 in S.F.No. 517/2 of Andakulam village, Kulathur taluk, Pudukkottai District

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD). No.28728 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok for R1 to R3 Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶22

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶23

2.Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents 4 and 5, notice to the respondents 4 and 5 is dispensed with.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 remove the encroachment made by respondents 4 and 5 in S.F.No. 517/2 of Andakulam village, Kulathur taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶25

In order to remove the encroachment alleged to have been made by the respondents 4 and 5 in the aforesaid survey number, the petitioner has given a representation on 29.06.2024. Since the said representation 2/5

¶26

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

¶27

WP(MD). No.28728 of 2024

¶28

has not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

¶29

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this

¶30

nature is made to Statutory Authorities, there is a duty cast upon them 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.

¶31

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.06.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject property, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

WP(MD). No.28728 of 2024

¶35

has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶36

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

[M.S.R.,J] [A.D.M.C.,J] 02.12.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

¶39

¶40

To 1. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District..

¶41

The Revenue Divisional Officer/Monitoring Committee, Illupur Post and Taluk, Pudukkottai District..

¶42

The Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District..

¶43

4/5

¶44

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

¶45

WP(MD). No.28728 of 2024

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.28728 of 2024

¶49

Date : 02/12/2024

¶50

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

¶51

5/5

Annadurai v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annadurai 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

The Joint Commissioner (St) Vs R . Periyasamy

Sudalai Vs P.Lakshmi Manikam

Seeni Musthafa Vs The District Collector

The Principal Secretary to the Government Vs Y.Suresh Kumar

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs a.Subbiah(Died)

The Joint Commissioner St Vs E Rajadurai