SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1212

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, L. VICTORIA GOWRI, JJ.
R. Muthukani – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tirunelveli & Others – Respondents
W.P(MD)No. 1066 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Kesavan, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1 & R2, M. Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, R3, A. Prasanna Rajadurai, Advocate.

Enforcement of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to remove encroachments on public pathways and government lands.

Headnote:

Encroachment - Public Pathway - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Section 7 - The court directed the first and second respondents to proceed with the eviction process against the third respondent under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and remove the encroachments identified by the petitioner and the revenue authorities within a period of three weeks.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to direct the second respondent to remove the encroachment put up by the third respondent on a public pathway in S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 at Madha Kovil Street, Koodankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the third respondent had encroached upon the Government Poromboke Water Stream and Government Natham Poromboke lands in R.S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 respectively, and directed the first and second respondents to proceed with the eviction process and remove the encroachments within three weeks.

Issues: Non-consideration of petitioner's representation, encroachment on public pathway, inaction of the first and second respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the third respondent had encroached upon government lands and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed, and the first and second respondents are directed to proceed with the eviction process against the third respondent and remove the encroachments within three weeks.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to remove the encroachment put up by the third respondent on a public pathway in S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 at Madha Kovil Street, Koodankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a time stipulation as prescribed by this Court.)

L. Victoria Gowri, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the second respondent to remove the encroachment put up by the third respondent on a public pathway in S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 at Madha Kovil Street, Koodankulam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a time stipulation as prescribed by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.A.Kesavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the third respondent carefully and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the non consideration of her representation dated 02.12.2022 by the second respondent with regard to the removal of encroachment which is being put up by the third respondent on the public pathway in S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 at Madha Kovil Street, Koodankulam Village. She is residing in her house situated in S.No.1130/8 of Koodankulam Village and adjacent to her house in the northern and southern sides, there are two public pathways stretching towards East to West in S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 which are measuring to the extent of 0.00.5 and 0.00.26 hectares respectively. The third respondent is her neighbour who is residing adjacent to her house, who has put up doors in those public pathways, thereby encroaching those pathways for the purpose of converting the same for his own purpose. Agitating against the objectionable encroachment put up by the third respondent, she has sent representations dated 20.07.2021 and 28.07.2021 to the authorities concerned. Considering her representations, the Block Development Officer, Radhapuram passed an order vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.AA3/2235/2021 dated 15.03.2022 initiating eviction process against the third respondent. Against which, the third respondent filed W.P(MD)No.15587 of 2022 before this Court.

4. On 19.07.2022, this Court allowed W.P(MD)No.15587 of 2022 on the ground that the Block Development Officer is not a competent person to initiate eviction process under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. However, this Court has observed the said order that the second respondent may proceed in a manner known to law, if it is found that the third respondent has encroached any portion of public road or pathway which is vested with local body. This Court further directed the second respondent to conduct survey after issuing notice to the third respondent and in case any encroachment made by the third respondent, the second respondent shall proceed further under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

5. In terms of the said order, the second respondent conducted survey and found that the third respondent has encroached the public pathway in S.Nos.1130/5 and 1130/9 at Koodankulam Village. Thereafter the second respondent issued an eviction notice dated 18.09.2022 under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, against which, the third respondent filed another writ petition in W.P(MD)No.22108 of 2022. On 20.09.2022, this Court closed W.P(MD)No.22108 of 2022 on accepting the submission of the third respondent that the said writ petition may be closed giving him liberty to approach the authorities concerned with all documentary evidence available with him. In furtherance to the same, the third respondent was further given opportunity to produce his explanation along with supporting documents.

6. Though the third respondent submitted three documents pertaining to S.Nos.957/2A, 952/2A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top