Disposed

Muthammal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Monitoring Committee

Madras HC9 Jan 2025WP(MD)/606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to remove the fourth respondent's encroachment of a public street. The court directed respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2024 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within three months after giving opportunity to interested persons.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1-3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders within three months, after due opportunity to interested parties.

Muthammal Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

Muthammal

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Monitoring Committee,

¶13

Revenue Divisional Office,

¶14

Sattur,

¶15

Virudhunagar District.

¶16

2.The Tahsildar,

¶17

Taluk Office,

¶18

Sattur,

¶19

Virudhunagar District.

¶20

3.The Panchayat Union Commissioner,

¶21

Panchayat Union Office,

¶22

Sattur,

¶23

Virudhunagar District.

¶24

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

¶25

1/7

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶27

4.Periyashanmugaiah

¶28

: Respondents

¶29

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent at public street situated in Survey No.107/63 at the petitioner's village of

¶30

Sindhuvampatti, Uppathur Post, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District by considering her representation dated 19.12.2024.

¶31

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugappan For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino

¶32

Special Government Pleader

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

¶35

[ Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.]

¶36

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for

¶37

final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶38

2/7

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶41

2. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent at public street situated in Survey No.107/63 at the petitioner's village of Sindhuvampatti, Uppathur Post, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, by considering her representation dated 19.12.2024.

¶42

3. Since this Court is directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, after giving due opportunity to the private respondent herein, notice to the private respondent is hereby dispensed with.

¶43

4. The petitioner herein had given a representation to the official respondents on 19.12.2024, in this regard. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶44

5. 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

¶45

3/7

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶48

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 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.

¶49

6. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner herein and the fourth respondents, 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.

¶50

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶52

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed

¶53

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

[M.S.R.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.]

¶55

09.01.2025

¶56

Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶57

¶58

5/7

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶61

¶62

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer / Monitoring Committee, Revenue Divisional Office, Sattur,

¶63

Virudhunagar District.

¶64

2.The Tahsildar,

¶65

Taluk Office,

¶66

Sattur,

¶67

Virudhunagar District.

¶68

3.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Panchayat Union Office, Sattur,

¶69

Virudhunagar District.

¶70

6/7

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.606 of 2025

¶76

09.01.2025

¶77

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Muthammal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthammal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Monitoring Committee

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.Ramakrishnan Vs The District Collector

The General Manager Vs v.Ponnusamy

V.Duraisamy Vs The District Collector

C.Esakkimuthu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Chinnaiya Vs The District Collector

S.M.John Britto Vs The District Collector