A.Stalin Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

A.Stalin Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the second respondent (Tahsildhar, Uthamapalayam) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2025 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the fifth respondent, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within twelve [12] weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents should consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2025 seeking removal of the encroachment made by the fifth respondent on the Public Pathway in Survey No.375/3, Odaikulam, Anumandhanpatti, Uthamapalayam circle, Theni District.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2025 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, confining itself to the limited scope of the prayer (consideration of the representation).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Madurai Bench, Art. 226) by A.Stalin seeking a mandamus to respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment alleged to have been made by the fifth respondent on the Public Pathway in Survey No.375/3, Odaikulam, Anumandhanpatti, Uthamapalayam circle, Theni District, pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2025, which had not been considered. Notice to the fifth respondent was dispensed with and the petition was heard at the admission stage by consent. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court (J. Nisha Banu, J.) disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent (Tahsildhar, Uthamapalayam) to consider the representation dated 06.03.2025 after hearing the petitioner and the fifth respondent and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within twelve [12] weeks. No costs.

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 23.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

A.Stalin

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector,

Theni District.

2.The Tahsildhar, Uthamapalayam,

Theni District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

4.The Executive Officer, Anumandhanpatti, Theni District.

5.J.Rexan Sevear

...Respondents

PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment made on Public Pathway in Survey No.375/3,

1/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

Odaikulam, Anumandhanpatti, Uthamapalayam circle, Theni District by 5th respondent based on the representation dated 06.03.2025 preferred by the petitioner within time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Johnrobert Kennady For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)

Mr.S.S.Madhavan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice

for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 3 and 4. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with.

2.By consent, this writ petition is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 06.03.2025 seeking to remove the encroachment made in the petition mentioned

2/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

property has not been considered so far. Therefore, he has filed this Writ Petition.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law within a period that may be stipulated by this Court.

5.Co nsidering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the

Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.03.2025 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent

and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period

of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

(J.N.B.,J.) (S.S.Y.,J.) 23.04.2025

Index:Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta

3/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

To

1.The District Collector, Theni District.

2.The Tahsildhar, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

4.The Executive Officer, Anumandhanpatti, Theni District.

4/5

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

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

J. NISHA BANU,J. and S.SRIMATHY.J

ta

W.P.(MD)No.11419 of 2025

23.04.2025

5/5

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