Paramasivam v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Paramasivam

...Petitioner

-Vs1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Joint Director (Panchayats), Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Manikandam Panchayat Union, Tiruchirappalli District.

4.The Executive Officer, Kallikudi Village Panchayat, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

5.The Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

...Respondents

[R5 is suo motu impleaded as respondent vide order dated 29.04.2025] 1/5

PRAYER:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachment made by them in Plot No.33 in Survey No. 30/2A1A1A, Kallikudi Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and to restore possession of the land to the petitioner within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.) By consent, this writ petition is taken up for admission at the admission stage itself.

2.Since the Tahsildar is the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner, the Tahsildar is suo motu impleaded as party respondent in this writ petition.

3.Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for all the respondents.

4.The grievance of the petitioner is that his representation dated 05.03.2025 seeking to remove the encroachment made in the petition mentioned property, has not been considered so far. Therefore, he has filed this Writ Petition.

2/5

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law within a period that may be stipulated by this Court. 6.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit a copy of the representation to the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent is further directed to consider the representation of the petitioner 05.03.

2025 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6 and also considering the classification of the land in question and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. (J.N.B.,J.) (S.S.Y.,J.) 29.04.

To 1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District.

2.The Joint Director (Panchayats), Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Manikandam Panchayat Union, Tiruchirappalli District.

4.The Executive Officer, Kallikudi Village Panchayat, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

5.The Tahsildar, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District.

4/5

J. NISHA BANU,J.

and S.SRIMATHY.J ta 29.04.2025 5/5