Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.SUNDAR, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, JJ
AMBEDKAR NATRAJAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. encroachment on a pond (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. encroachment proceedings initiated (Para 6) |
| 3. ongoing suit and encroachment law (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. rights of all parties retained (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs (Para 12) |
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.]
Captioned 'writ petition' [hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity]
has been filed with a Removal of Encroachment (RoE) prayer qua 'S.No.375/8 in No.79, Keezhmudhalambedu-II Panchayat, Gummidipoondi Panchayat Union, Thiruvallur District' [hereinafter 'said property' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner contends that the said property is a pond.
3. Repeated requests for RoE qua official respondents has not yielded results and that has necessitated the filing of the captioned WP is learned counsel's say.
4. Issue notice to official respondents.
5. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for RR 1,2 and 4 and Mr. R. Neethiperumal, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for RR 3 and 5.
6. Mr. T.K. Saravanan, learned State counsel for RR 1,2 and 4 submits, on instructions that RoE action has already been initiated qua 'the Tamil Nadu
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
