P.K.Ravi v. The District Colloctor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1 P.K.RAVI 2 A.VENDA 3 M.CHITRA 4 K.RAGU 5 K.BABU 6 B.NARASIMMAN 7 N.PICHAIMUTHU 8 N.KUMAR 9 S.KASINATHAN 10 M.DHANAPAL 11 K.ARIVAZHAGAN 12 A.HARIDASS 13 M.SEKAR 14 A.SUMITHRA 15 P.LATHA 16 M.MALARVENI 17 B.SRIKALA 18 J.VALLIYAMMAL 19 K.MANIKUMAR 20 A.MANJULA 21 B.DURGA DEVI 22 S.VENDA 23 R.MALARKODI 24 S.SHOBA 25 S.POORNIMA 26 SELVI VINCET
27 R.MALLIGA 28 M.KUPPAMMAL 29 S.SARITHA 30 D.PRABAKARAN 31 A.MENAKA 32 S.SELVI 33 V.RAMESH 34 SANTHI NARASEN 35 R.JAYANTHI 36 B.RADHA 37 S.KAVITHA 38 MURUGAMMAL RAVI 39 K.RAJESH KUMAR 40 S.NARMADHA .. Petitioners Vs 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE SATHUVACHARI VELLORE VELLORE DISTRICT.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT.
3 THE THASILDAR OFFICE OF THE THASILDAR ANAIKATTU, ANAIKATTU TALUK VELLORE DISTRICT.
.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to pass order on the petitioners' representation dated 22.05.2018 based on the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.6741 and 6742 of 2012 delivered on 20.09.2012 by Honble Supreme Court of India and also based on the order of the 2nd Respondent vide his Letter O.Mu.No. A2/1860/2023, dated 06.06.2023 to the 3rd Respondent within a stipulated time.
For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Arokia Mani Raj For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.S.Arokia Mani Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petition is as vague as it could be. The petitioners contend that encroachers are on the subject property. The persons who are allegedly occupying the subject property are not parties to the petition.
3. According to learned State Government Pleader, the subject land has been assigned to 14 persons from the year 1978 to 1987.
4. Changing the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that those persons have violated the terms of assignment. As to what terms of the assignment are violated is also not placed on record. The persons who allegedly violated the terms are not parties to the petition. Such a petition cannot be entertained.
5. It is for the petitioners to come out with authentic documents and pleadings, if they want to seek any relief.
6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. If the petitioners come out with specific pleadings and with all the necessary parties, then they may file a fresh petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.35727 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 03.01.2024 Index :
Yes/No Yes/No sasi
To:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE SATHUVACHARI VELLORE VELLORE DISTRICT.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT.
3 THE THASILDAR OFFICE OF THE THASILDAR ANAIKATTU, ANAIKATTU TALUK VELLORE DISTRICT.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(sasi) 03.01.2024