Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M China Paiyan vs The District Collector And Others

Madras High Court|27 February, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.02.2017 CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.No.4796 of 2017 M.China Paiyan .. Petitioner -vs-
1. The District Collector, O/o. Thiruvannamalai District Collector, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Thasildar, Polur Taluk.
4. J.Kumaravel .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2016 and direct respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in canal passage lake area in Villankuppam village, Kelur post, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) Mr.M.K.Subramanian, learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent 1 to 3.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2016 and direct respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment made by the fourth respondent in canal passage lake area in Villankuppam village, Kelur post, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent encroached upon the canal passage lake area in Villankuppam Village, Thiruvannamalai District. The petitioner sent a representation on 23.6.2016 seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment. However, no action taken so far.
Hence, the present writ petition.
4. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner has been forwarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer/second respondent to the Tahsildar/third respondent for taking necessary action.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the third respondent to take suitable action in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Index : No Internet : Yes sasi To
1. The District Collector, (H.G.R., ACJ.) (R.M.D., J.) 27.02.2017 O/o. Thiruvannamalai District Collector, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Thasildar, Polur Taluk.
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and R.Mahadevan, J.
(sasi) W.P.No.4796 of 2017 27.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M China Paiyan vs The District Collector And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
27 February, 2017
Judges
  • Huluvadi G Ramesh
  • R Mahadevan