Sumathi v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA Sumathi

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The District Collector, District Collector Office,Salem.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur, Salem

3. The Thasildar, The Thasildar Office, Attur, Salem.

4. The Municipal Commissioner, The Municipal Commissioner Office, Attur Salem.

...Respondents

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to duly consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2024 and 16.04.2025 and conduct enquiry within the fixed time stipulated by this Court and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.R. Manoharan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M. Shajakhan, Special Government Pleader For Respondent 4 : Dr. T. Seenivasan Special Government Pleader 1/6

ORDER

M. Shajakhan, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first, second and third respondents. Dr.T. Seenivasan, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the fourth respondent

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. This writ petition is filed Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2024 and 16.04.2025 and to conduct an enquiry and pass orders.

4. The petitioner's aged parents own property in New Survey No.40, Patta No.40 and are doing agricultural activity in the said property. The petitioner states that access to their residence and agricultural lands was been 2/6

through a tar road belonging to the 4 th respondent Municipal Corporation. While so, one SunCity Real Estate, developed a lay out and unlawfully constructed a wall blocking the public tar road, thereby cutting access to the petitioner's property. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 28.11.2024, to remove the wall which was constructed unlawfully. But no action was taken and therefore the petitioner submitted another representation on 16.04.2024, to the respondents. Even then, no action was taken. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the above writ petition for the above said relief.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though several issues were raised in the writ petition, he would restrict his prayer for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2024 and 16.04.2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

6. At this juncture Mr.M. Shajakhan, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the direction should be issued to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation. 3/6

7. Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner's counsel, this Court without going into the merits of the case, directs the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2024 and 16.04.2025, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

17.06.2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No smn 4/6

To.

1. The District Collector, District Collector Office,Salem.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Attur, Salem

3. The Thasildar, The Thasildar Office, Attur, Salem.

4. The Municipal Commissioner, The Municipal Commissioner Office, Attur Salem.

5/6

N.MALA,J.

smn 17.06.2025 6/6