Disposed

P. Yusuvadiyan v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Dec 2024WP(MD)/3215/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought implementation of a Tahsildar's order to remove encroachment by a private respondent. The court granted liberty for a fresh representation and directed the authority to consider it on merits within three months, without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a fresh representation; respondent to consider it on merits and pass orders within three months after hearing petitioner and interested parties.

P. Yusuvadiyan Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020

P.Yesuvadiyan

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Vilathikulam Panchayat Union, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶13

C.Jeyaseelan

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to implement the 2^nd respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa7/11441/2014 dated 25.09.2019 to remove the encroachment made by the 4^th

¶16

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

¶17

Page No.1 of 5

¶18

W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020

¶19

respondent herein in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajaram For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.R.J.Karthick

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to implement the 2^nd respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa7/11441/2014, dated 25.09.2019, to remove the encroachment made by the 4^th respondent herein in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Vilathikulam Taluk Streets are Vembar South Union are encroached upon by several persons, including the 4^th respondent and though the petitioner's repeated representations seeking removal of the abovesaid encroachment culminated into an order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent / Tahsildar, directing the 3^rd respondent /

¶25

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

¶26

Page No.2 of 5

¶27

W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020

¶28

Block Development Officer to remove the encroachments in the subject place, the said order was not implemented by the 3^rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner again made a representation dated 21.10.2019 to the 1^st respondent, seeking removal of encroachment and finding no heed to it was paid, he has filed this writ petition.

¶29

Heard both sides.

¶30

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 private respondents, as well as to any other person, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3) months from the 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

¶31

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

¶32

Page No.3 of 5

¶33

W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020

¶34

that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same, on its

¶35

own merits.

¶36

5 . With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶37

of. No costs.

¶38

(M.S.R, J.) (A.D.M.C, J.) 11.12.2024

¶39

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶40

¶41

The District Collector, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.

¶42

The Tahsildar, Vilathikulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

¶43

The Block Development Officer, Vilathikulam Panchayat Union, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothkudi District.

¶44

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

¶45

Page No.4 of 5

¶46

W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020

¶47

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

¶48

bala

¶49

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.3215 of 2020 DATED : 11.12.2024

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 5

P. Yusuvadiyan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Yusuvadiyan 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 Government of Tamilnadu Vs Karthick.a

The District Educational Officer Vs L.Pushparaj

C.Jeyakumar Vs The District Collector

Rukkumani Vs The Corporation Commissioner

S.Solappan Vs S.Sundarraj

O.S.K.David, Vs the District Collector