Disposed

V.Palanikumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC27 Nov 2024WP(MD)/9658/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to remove encroachment made by the fourth respondent. The Court directed respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation within three months, after providing opportunity to all interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

V.Palanikumar Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶7

V.Palanikumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

4.Veluchamy ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the entire encroachment made by the 4^th respondent in SF.No.378/5 of Kuruvai Kulam Village, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District by considering petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2024.

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Arul Jenifer For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.T.Balaji

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed for Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the entire encroachment made by the fourth respondent in SF.No.378/5, Kuruvai Kulam Village, Thiruchuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2024.

¶21

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the official respondents on 26.02.2024 to remove the encroachments alleged to have been made by the fourth respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶26

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.

¶27

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 26.02.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject property, 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.

¶28

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 27.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶33

¶34

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶35

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli Taluk, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

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

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.9658 of 2024

¶43

27.11.2024

¶44

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

¶45

Page 5 of 5

V.Palanikumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Palanikumar 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

T.Packirisamy Vs the Presiding Officer

The Assistant Commissioner II (St) Vs Ramesh Exports Private Ltd.

Tamilselvi Vs The Authorized Officer

Chandrasekaran.T Vs The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

Ignasimuthu .T Vs The Thasildar

R.Muthuvel Vs The District Collector/Monitoring Committee