← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/12918/2024dismissed

P.Pitchai v. The District Collector/Monitoring Authority,

2024-06-18Honourable The Acting Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.06.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.R.MAHADEVAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN P.Pitchai .. Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector/Monitoring Authority, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Taluk, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Tahsildhar, Musiri Taluk, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

4.Vasudevan 5.Thiyagarajan 6.Padmanaban 7.Veerammal 8.Chikkan Gounder 9.Pushparani .. Respondents

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate and immediate steps to remove the encroachment put up by the respondents 4 to 9 in Survey Nos.297/1, 298/1, 298/3, 301/2, 301/3A, 301/3B, 302/2 & 304/1 which is classified as Government Poramboke situated at Pulivalam Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District within the period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.N.Sathish Babu For R-1 to R-3 :

Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.

and G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

Heard Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P(MD)No.13902 of 2020 for taking action for removal of encroachments in the petition mentioned survey numbers. That writ petition was closed on 10.11.2022 by recording the stand of the

Government that there is no encroachment and that, the lands in question are private patta lands. In fact, the said statement was not refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

The prayer in the present writ petition is identical. When W.P(MD)No.13902 of 2002 filed by the petitioner was closed and no relief was granted, a second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable. It is for the petitioner to work out his right in the manner known to law.

4. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. (R.M.D., ACJ.) (G.R.S., J.) 18.06.2024 NCC: :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PM

To 1.The District Collector/Monitoring Authority, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri Taluk, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

3.The Tahsildhar, Musiri Taluk, Musiri, Tiruchirappalli District.

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.

and G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

PM 18.06.2024