N.Ramesh, v. The Block Development

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI W.P.(MD).No.8137 of 2019 N.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Block Development Officer (BDO), Kuruvikulam Panchayat Union,

2. The Tahsildar, Tiruvengadam Taluk,

3. The Inspector of Police, Ayyapuram Police Station, Tiruvengadam Taluk, (R3 is deleted vide Court order dated 05.04.2019.) 4.Jeyaraman ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to remove the encroachment put up by the fourth respondent in the pathway in Survey No.1009/10, Nayakkarpatti, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subbaraj For R1 : Mr.P.Kannithevan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.F.X.Eugene

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.) Heard Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Kannithevan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned

Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment put up by the fourth respondent in public pathway in Survey No.1009/10 at Nayakkarpatti in Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner has constructed a house in Survey No.1005 in his village and residing with his family. It is further stated that the fourth respondent has encroached upon a public pathway in Survey No.1009/10. Since the encroachment was not removed despite the representations of the petitioner dated 04.02.2019, 05.02.2019 and 18.02.2019, the present writ petition has been filed. It is further stated that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent would state that the representations of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

5. Mr.F.X.Eugene, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would argue that admittedly the land in dispute has been classified as Natham in the Revenue Records and unless the petitioner establishes the public pathway, the present writ petition is not maintainable and if the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach the revenue authorities.

6. However, considering the nature of the prayer sought for in the writ petition and the submissions of the learned counsels on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to all necessary parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To

1. The Block Development Officer (BDO), Kuruvikulam Panchayat Union,

2. The Tahsildar, Tiruvengadam Taluk, +1 CC to M/s.P.SUBBARAJ, Advocate ( SR-61667[F] dated 23/04/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.F.X.EUGENE, Advocate ( SR-61727[F] dated 23/04/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-62147[F] dated 24/04/2019 ) W.P.(MD).No.8137 of 2019 22.04.2019 CS: 13/05/2019/3P/6C