Darmin Jeya Suba v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P(MD)No.3426 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.3392 of 2024 Darmin Jeya Suba ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kaniyakumari District, Nagarkovil.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kaniyakumari District, Nagarkovil.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vilavancode Division,

4.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, 5.Mr.Radhakrishnan ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st - 4th respondents to demolish the unauthorized construction of temple being constructed in the petitioner's land situated in Old. Sy.No.1474.B and New Sy.No.14/19 Kunnathur Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kaniyakumari District, on the basis of the representation given to the respondents dated 24.01.2023.

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Josoeph Jerry For R-1 to R-4 :Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.] The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to demolish the unauthorized construction of temple being constructed in the petitioner's land situated in

Old. Sy.No.1474.B and New Sy.No.14/19 of Kunnathur Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kaniyakumari District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 24.01.2023.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she made a representation before the respondents on 24.01.2023, seeking to remove the encroachment made in her property. According to the petitioner, by taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner is not in the local village, the fifth respondent has constructed the temple in the petition mentioned property and therefore, the said encroachment has to be removed.

3. It is stated that the property belongs to the petitioner and she is having a right over the subject property. These are all private disputes, the same cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to seek remedy before the civil Court seeking appropriate remedy.

4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 15.02.2024 Index :

Yes / No PM To:

1.The District Collector, Kaniyakumari District, Nagarkovil.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Kaniyakumari District, Nagarkovil.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vilavancode Division, 4.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk,

D.KRISHNAKUMAR , J.

and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

PM W.P.(MD)No.3426 of 2024 15.02.2024