← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/5391/2025disposed of

Thangappan v. The District Collector

2025-02-28Honourable Mr Justice V. Lakshminarayanan5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Writ Petition(MD)No.5391 of 2025 Thangappan ..Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Trichy District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, Office of the Panchayat President, Muthirasanallur, Trichy District.

5.The Head Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

..Respondents 1/5

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2025 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Saha For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Govt. Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2025 in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner was visited with an encroachment notice at the instance of the President of the Village Panchayat. He challenged the same by way of a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.4446 of 2024. This Court found that the Panchayat President has no jurisdiction to issue notices for removal of encroachment under the Land Encroachment Act and quashed the same on 2/5

27.02.2024. Liberty was granted to the authority to proceed in accordance with the law in case they find that the petitioner is an encroacher.

3. The petitioner alleges that even after the said order was passed, the respondents 3 to 5 herein are continuing to harass him. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard Mr.A.V.Saha for the petitioner and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

5. Mr.M.Muthumanikkam states that the revenue authorities have not harassed the petitioner at all, and the entire writ petition is a tissue of falsehood. He states that the revenue authorities will strictly follow the requirements of law, and if they find that the petitioner is an encroacher, they will initiate proceedings in accordance with the applicable statutes.

6. As Mr.M.Muthumanikkam states that the respondents 3 to 5 are not harassing the petitioner. This submission is recorded. It is open to the respondents to initiate such action as they are empowered to do so. 3/5

7. This writ petition is disposed of. No costs.. 28.02.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes skn To 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Trichy District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, Office of the Panchayat President, Muthirasanallur, Trichy District.

5.The Head Surveyor, Office of the Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

4/5

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

skn Writ Petition(MD)No.5391 of 2025 28.02.2025 5/5