Madras High CourtWP/14146/2017disposed of

P.Boobalan v. The District Collector

2023-07-14Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.07.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU P.Boobalan ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal.

2. The District Revenue Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

4. The Tahsildar Senthamangalam & Taluk Namakkal District.

5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer(H) Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer(H) Senthamangalam Sub-Division Senthamangalam, Namakkal District.

6. Arumugam

7. Balasundaram

8. Vellayan

9. Rani 10.Ramasamy 11.Govindaraj 12.Kuppusamy 13.Pazhanisamy 14.Santhi ..

Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal to initiate action on the petitioner's representation dated 26.08.2016 as directed by the second respondent the District Revenue Officer, Namakkal in his proceedings O.Mu.497/2015/L3 dated 22/02/2017 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

For the Petitioner : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader Assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 5

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 5.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 6 to 14 were granted patta. But, the same was for residential purpose. Now, the respondents 6 to 14 are using it for commercial purposes.

3. We asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner would be aggrieved if the construction is made by the respondents 6 to 14 in their own land. According to learned counsel, the land was for residential purpose and they ought not to have used it for commercial purpose.

4. The rights of the petitioner are not affected. If the petitioner has moved the authority, it is for the petitioner to prosecute the

application with the authority concerned, on its own merits and in accordance with law and policy.

5. The writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 14.07.2023 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No kpl To

1. The District Collector Namakkal District, Namakkal.

2. The District Revenue Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

3. Revenue Divisional Officer Namakkal District, Namakkal.

4. The Tahsildar Senthamangalam & Taluk Namakkal District.

5. The Assistant Divisional Engineer(H) Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer(H) Senthamangalam Sub-Division Senthamangalam, Namakkal District.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(kpl) 14.07.2023