Disposed

S.Rajesh Kanna v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Dec 2024WP(MD)/30476/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to direct relevant authorities to remove encroachment on 'Sarkar Poromboke' land and demolish unauthorized construction. The Court directed the District Collector and Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within three months after giving an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass an order within 3 months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested part

S.Rajesh Kanna Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

S.Rajesh Kanna

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Chairperson, Divisional Monitoring Committee, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶13

4.The Municipal Commissioner, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶14

5.Kesavarajan ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, seeking direction that the respondents No.1 and 2 herein to remove the encroachment made in 'Sarkar Poromboke' land which situated at Old Survey No.278/2PT, 278/4PT and New Survey No.3/1, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶18

Ettayapuram Road, Kovilpatti Town, Thoothukudi District and consequently direct the 4^th respondent herein to demolish the unauthorized construction on Government land by considering the petitioner's representations dated 14.06.2024 and 18.06.2024 within a stipulated time as prescribed by this Court and consequently direct them to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing final order.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed for Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to remove the encroachment made in 'Sarkar Poromboke' land situated at Old Survey No.278/2PT, 278/4PT and New Survey No.3/1, Ettayapuram Road, Kovilpatti Town, Thoothukudi District and consequently, direct the 4^th respondent herein to demolish the unauthorized construction on Government land by considering the petitioner's representations dated 14.06.2024 and 18.06.2024 within a stipulated time as prescribed by this Court and consequently, direct them to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing final order.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶26

Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the fifth respondent, notice to the fifth respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶27

The petitioner herein along with other social activists had given a representation to the first and second respondents on 18.06.2024 to remove the encroachment made in 'Sarkar Poromboke' land situated at Old Survey No.278/2PT, 278/4PT and New Survey No.3/1, Ettayapuram Road, Kovilpatti Town, Thoothukudi District. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶28

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.

¶29

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the

¶30

first and second respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶33

dated 18.06.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the fifth respondent herein, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶34

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

¶35

shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 16.12.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Chairperson, Divisional Monitoring Committee, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶40

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

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶43

3.The Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶44

4.The Municipal Commissioner, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

¶45

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

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

W.P.(MD).No.30476 of 2024

¶51

16.12.2024

¶52

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

¶53

Page 6 of 6

S.Rajesh Kanna v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajesh Kanna 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

M.J.Jayapal Vs M.Pallavi Baldev

Periyasamy Vs Madhusudhan Reddy

Muthupandi Vs S.Ramesh

S.Satheesh Kumar Vs The Director General of Police

M.Alagarraja Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

M.Theenathayalan Vs The Commissioner