T.Sundaresan v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 01.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN WP.No.4570/2021 T.Sundaresan .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Collector Thiruvallur.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruvallur.

3.The Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

4.M.Rajamani 5.John Wesly Ravi 6.Balakrishnan 7.Thomas .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action against respondents 4 to 7 to remove the encroachments in S.No.95 extent of 2 acres 42 cents situated at Parivakkam Chathiram, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District by considering the representation made by the petitioner on 19.03.2020 by the 3rd respondent within the time to be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Chandrasekaran For RR 1 to 3 :

Mr.R.Vijayakumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J. through Video Conferencing] (1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

(2)Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. (3)The petitioner has approached the official respondents in the form of representation alleging that the private respondents are in unauthorised / illegal occupation of the lands in S.Nos.82, 89/2, 89/1, 95 and 92 of Parivakkam Chathiram Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The office of the 1st respondent, vide Endorsement dated 25.02.2008 in Na.Ka,No.39764/07/N1, after referring to the order dated 06.11.2007 made in WP.No.34580/2007 and having found that the lands in S.Nos.82, 89/2, 89/1 and 95 belongs to Arulmighu Sri Vigneswarar Temple and that the land in S.No.92 has been classified as '''village site'', has informed the Trustees of the said Temple that they lack power to take any action for eviction. The petitioner, not satisfied with the same, has also submitted one more representation on 19.03.2020 for eviction of the private respondents and since it has failed to invoke any kind of response, is constrained to file the present writ petition.

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice to direct the official respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2020 on merits and in accordance with law within the stipulated time frame.

(5) Per contra, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that in the light of the fact that major portion of the lands, as per the Revenue Records, belong to the said temple, the respondents are unable to invoke any law for eviction of the private respondents and the remedy open to the petitioner, if any, is to invoke the Common Law remedy.

(6)This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

(7)This Court, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his representation or in this writ petition, permits the petitioner to approach the Public Information Officer of respondents 1 to 3 to know about the fate of his representation dated 19.03.2020 and depending upon the information furnished, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in accordance with law before the Competent Forum.

(8)The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ap To 1.The District Collector Thiruvallur.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Thiruvallur.

3.The Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

+1 cc to Government Pleader sr13178 +1 cc to Mr.R.Chandrasekaran Advocate sr12313 WP.No.4570/2021 aa09/03/2021