K.Ponnusamy v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.07.2019 CORAM :

The Hon'ble Mrs.VIJAYA K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.18513 of 2019 K.Ponnusamy .. Petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Tahsildar, Chetpattu Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Chetpet, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

4.M.Sathanandham 5.B.Dhanasekar 6.R.Balaji 7.Kamalakannan 8.Ramachandran @ Ramu .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 17.05.2019 of the petitioner regarding encroachment of Government poramboke land in S.No.35 of Uhtur village, Chetpattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District and initiate action further within a time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan Government Pleader (i/c) for respondent Nos.1 to 3

ORDER

(Order of the Court made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.G.Punniakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Jayaraprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader (i/c) for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.4 to 8 have encroached on the property which is situated in front of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner resides at Othalavadi Madura, Kiluvanatham Village, Chetpattu Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. Further case of the petitioner is that being aggrieved by the said encroachment, he has preferred a representation to respondent No.1 i.e., the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, in relation to the removal of the said encroachment. The prayer of the petitioner is that his representation be considered at the earliest.

3. The learned Government Pleader (i/c) pointed out that respondent No.1, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, is not the proper authority to whom the representation ought to have been made, but respondent No.2 i.e., the Tahsildar, Chetpattu Taluk, is the proper and correct authority to whom such representation should be addressed. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he will prefer necessary representation in relation to the said encroachment to respondent No.2, the Tahsildar, Chetpattu Taluk, within a period of ten days from today. If such representation is received by respondent No.2 within the period of ten days from today, he shall decide the representation within a period of eight weeks, after giving notice to respondent Nos.4 to 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

bbr To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Tahsildar, Chetpattu Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Chetpet, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

+1cc to Mr.G.Punniakoti, Advocate sr.54812 +1cc to Government Pleader sr.55183 W.P.No.18513 of 2019 nr 25/07/2019