Dismissed

Nagoor Oli S v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Jan 2024WP(MD)/55/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a land encroachment notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The Court held the statutory appeal before the District Collector had not been exhausted, dismissed the writ petition with liberty to appeal within two weeks and directed status quo.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to appeal to the District Collector within two weeks; status quo maintained till then; original notice returned to petitioner; no costs.

Nagoor Oli S Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.43 of 2024

S.Nagoor Oli

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector, Dindigul.

¶12

2.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Dindigul District.

¶13

3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.4131/2023/Aa2 dated 15.12.2023 and quash the same.

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶22

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the

¶23

3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.4131/2023/Aa2, dated 15.12.2023.

¶24

2. According to the petitioner, the property in question in S.No.67/5,

¶25

Naidupuram, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District, measuring an extent of 2.5 Cents, has been assigned to the petitioner's mother in the year 2013 and the petitioner's mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the meanwhile, a show cause notice was issued in the name of the petitioner's mother under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to which the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply and without passing any orders on that, the third respondent has issued the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024

¶29

3 . According to the third respondent, the objections raised by the

¶30

petitioner has been duly considered by the third respondent and the petitioner has encroached an excess land and therefore, the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶31

4 . We have considered the submissions made on both sides and

¶32

perused the materials produced before this Court.

¶33

5 . The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when there is a provision under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to file an appeal before the District Collector and without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶34

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to

¶35

the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the first respondent District Collector within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo prevailing as on date. Registry is directed to return the original notice to the petitioner, after

¶36

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024

¶39

replacing the same with a xerox copy. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ

¶40

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 03.01.2024

¶42

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SJ

¶43

¶44

1.The District Collector, Dindigul.

¶45

2.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Dindigul District.

¶46

3.The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶47

Page 4 of 5

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024

¶50

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶51

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.55 of 2024

¶53

03.01.2024

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

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

Nagoor Oli S v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagoor Oli S 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

B.Venkatu, Vs the Commissioner

R.Rajeswari Vs the Director

Jamaludeen Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.James Arulappa (Died) Vs the Commissioner

Dhamotharan.P.R Vs The Authorised Officer

Kumar.R Vs The District Collector