Dismissed

Sri Ramalinga Mills Private Ltd., v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC18 Jan 2024WP(MD)/966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an impugned consequential order. It held that the petitioner failed to challenge the initial notice under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, rendering the challenge to the subsequent order not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the Section 6 notice under Section 10 within two weeks.

Sri Ramalinga Mills Private Ltd., Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.992 and 993 of 2024

¶7

Sri Ramalinga Mills Private Ltd., No.212, Ramasamy Nagar, Athipatti Village, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District, Through its Authorized Signatory, S.Venugopala Krishnan ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, Virudhunagar District. 2.The President, Aruppukottai Taluk, Enroachment Removing Authority, (Tahsildar) Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶10

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Athipatti Village, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶11

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.KaNo.A2/519/2022 dated 15.11.2023 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Janaki Devi

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

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

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2^nd respondent in Na.KaNo.A2/519/2022, dated 15.11.2023.

¶20

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

¶21

According to the petitioner, they have sent objections to the notice dated 10.08.2023 and 17.10.2023 and without considering the same, the

¶22

_____________ Page 2 of 5_

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024

¶25

impugned order has been passed and therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶26

According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the petitioner has encroached a larger extent of land and without challenging the notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order is not maintainable.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed appeal against the notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The present notice is only a consequential notice to the notices issued under Sections 7 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, without challenging the notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the petitioner cannot challenge the consequential impugned order.

¶28

_____________ Page 3 of 5_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024

¶31

In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with

¶32

liberty to the petitioner to challenge the notice issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, before the District Collector under Section

¶33

10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶34

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 18.01.2024

¶35

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No SJ

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

¶38

2.The President, Aruppukottai Taluk, Enroachment Removing Authority, (Tahsildar) Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶39

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Athipatti Village, Virudhunagar District.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.966 of 2024

¶46

18.01.2024

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

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

Sri Ramalinga Mills Private Ltd., v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramalinga Mills Private Ltd., v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

N.K.Shamugasundaram Vs The District Collector

Manickam R Vs The District Collector

P.Murugeswari Vs The Authorized Officer

V.Kulandhai Velu, Vs The Executive Engineer

Muthamizh Nagar Vaazgha Vs the Director of Town and

Nachayee Vs The District Collector