G.Murugan Vs the District Collector

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to take action on the petitioner's representation letter dated 06.06.2020 to remove the encroachment made by the seventh respondent.

¶23

For petitioner Mr. A. Ramesh Manikandan

¶24

For RR 1 to 6 Mr. T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

[made by M. SUNDAR, J.]

¶27

Subject matter of captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity] is alleged encroachment in 'Village Panchayat Government poramboke land in S.No.369/23 admeasuring 741 sq. m. in Budur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶28

Page Nos.2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.23103 of 2025

¶31

Writ petitioner's request for removal of aforereferred

¶32

alleged encroachment by way of a representation addressed way back on 06.06.2020 to the authority concerned followed by a series of complaints, has not yielded results and that has necessitated captioned WP, is the submission of Mr. A. Ramesh Manikandan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner.

¶33

Issue notice to official respondents (RR 1 to 6).

¶34

Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government

¶35

Pleader, accepts notice for RR 1 to 6. Learned State counsel submits that survey of said land will be done within a period of six weeks from today, i.e., on or before 07.08.2025, after putting all concerned, including Poosami (R7) on notice, and depending on the outcome of the survey, action for removal of encroachment (if found) will be commenced vide 'the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1905)' [f or brevity 'said 1905 Act'] as expeditiously as the business of official respondents would permit but in any event within a period of six weeks therefrom, i.e. , on or before 18.09.2025.

¶36

Page Nos.3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.23103 of 2025

¶39

This submission is recorded.

¶40

Though obvious, we make it clear that all the rights and contentions of R7 stand preserved and this order does not impinge upon his rights. Therefore, there is no impediment in dispensing with notice to R7 and taking up the captioned WP with the consent of the learned State counsel and learned counsel for writ petitioner. We do so.

¶41