Radha v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI W.P.No.10129 of 2025 Radha Petitioner vs.
1.
The District Collector Thiruvallur District 2.
The Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk Ponneri 3.
The Block Development Officer Minjur Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District 4.
The President Nandiambakkam Panchayat Railway Station Road Nandiambakkam Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District 5.
Sivaraman 6.
Satheeshkumar 7.
A. Rajasekar 8.
Kuppu Page Nos.1/8
9.
S. Sekar 10.
V. Sekar 11.
Sundari Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachment on the Vinayagar Koil I Cross Street comprised in Survey No.321/12, Nandiambakkam Village, Minjur Town Panchayat, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District made by encroachers, viz., RR 5 to 11.
For petitioner Mr. D. Gopinathan
ORDER
[made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'writ petition' (hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed with a prayer for a direction to issue a writ of mandamus qua official respondents, viz., RR 1 to 4 as regards removal of alleged encroachment in 'S.No.321/12, Nandiambakkam Village, Nandiambakkam Panchayat, Minjur Panchayat Union, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, which, in other words, is Vinayagar Koil I Cross Street' (hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity). Page Nos.2/8
2.
Mr. D. Gopinathan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that private respondents, viz., RR 5 to 11 are alleged encroachers qua said land.
3.
Learned counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that repeated representations for removal of aforereferred encroachment are in vain and that has necessitated the filing of the captioned WP. 4.
When the captioned WP was taken up, it came to light that a suit being O.S.No.107 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri, between some of the private respondents and the writ petitioner qua said land is pending; RR 7, 5, 6 and 9 in captioned WP are plaintiffs 1 to 4 respectively in the suit, writ petitioner is D1 and her spouse Vijayakumar is D2.
5.
Description of the suit property as can be culled out from an affidavit filed in an interlocutory application in O.S.No.107 of 2024 is as under:
Page Nos.3/8
6.
Therefore, it is clear that aforereferred suit pertains to said land but there is no whisper in the writ affidavit (writ affidavit dated 05.03.2025) regarding any civil suit much less aforereferred suit. In this view of the matter, the following dates are of relevance: S.No.
Date Event Remarks 11.12.2024 Filing of O.S.No.107 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ponneri -- 11.12.2024 Filing of I.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 along with suit As of today, I.A. No.2 of 2024 is pending and is scheduled to come up on 09.06.2025; I.A.
Nos.1 and 3 of 2024 have been disposed of.
Page Nos.4/8
S.No.
Date Event Remarks 11.12.2024 First hearing of the suit Adjourned to 09.06.2025 for written statement as can be seen from District Court's e-website 20.02.2025 Fourth listing of suit which is issue of service -- 05.03.2025 Date of writ affidavit -- 11.03.2025 Presentation of captioned WP -- 18.03.2025 O.S. No.107 of 2024 adjourned to 09.06.2025 for written statement -- 18.03.2025 Filing of captioned WP -- 7.
From the aforereferred chronology of events, it is discernible that writ affidavit is dated 05.03.2025 and captioned WP has been presented on 11.03.2025. However, there is lack of clarity about the date of service of suit summons. Writ petitioner, as D1 in the suit, has entered appearance on 18.03.2025 and nothing prevented the writ petitioner from filing an additional affidavit post 18.03.2025, i.e., filing of captioned WP.
Page Nos.5/8
8.
Faced with the above situation, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner fairly submitted that it is counsel mistake and sought leave of this Court to withdraw the captioned WP but made a plea to preserve all the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner to come up with a fresh writ petition after making full and complete disclosure inter alia about the aforereferred civil suit. Saying so, learned counsel has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
Page Nos.6/8
9.
In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned WP is disposed of as withdrawn/closed albeit with preservation of rights and contentions of the writ petitioner to come to this Court again on the same cause with same / similar prayer after making full and complete disclosure inter alia about the aforereferred suit. Considering the nature of the submission made, we refrain from imposing costs. (M.S., J.) (K.G.T., J.) 25.03.2025 cad Index :
Yes/No NC :
Yes/No Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J.
and K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
cad To:
1.
The District Collector Thiruvallur District 2.
The Tahsildar Ponneri Taluk Ponneri 3.
The Block Development Officer Minjur Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District 4.
The President Nandiambakkam Panchayat Railway Station Road Nandiambakkam Ponneri Taluk Thiruvallur District 25.03.2025 Page Nos.8/8