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

M/S Senthil Electricals Rep By Its Partner M S Ramasamy Door No 71 vs The District Collector Tirupur District Tirupur And Others

Madras High Court|02 March, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) The writ appeal is directed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 26.8.2010 made in W.P.Nos.11848, 11847, 11852, 11849, 11775, 11851 and 11850 of 2010.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
3. The appellants are the absolute owners of their respective land and buildings in S.F.No.85/B2 in Avinashi Town and Taluk, Tiruppur District and they have been paying house tax, water charges, etc. According to the appellants, since 1993, the revenue authorities, claiming that the lands which are in possession of the appellants are Poramboke land, often used to issue notices to the appellants to explain their title or status of their possession and the appellants used to submit their explanations. On 20.5.2010, the second respondent issued notices to the appellants calling them to appear before him on 27.5.2010 for enquiry in respect of the encroachment made by them and accordingly, the appellants appeared before the second respondent and contended that the lands in question are Grama Natham and not Poramboke land. However, on 01.6.2010, the third respondent issued notices under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, to the appellants to vacate the lands in question within seven days, failing which, they would be evicted. Aggrieved by the said notice, the appellants filed writ petitions and the same were disposed of directing the appellants to prefer an appeal before the competent authority.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the land in question is Grama Natham and therefore, the appellants cannot be evicted from the land in question and accordingly, sought to set aside the order of the third respondent.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the land in question is required for widening of National Highways and therefore, notices were issued to the appellants by following due procedure of law and that the appellants have an alternative remedy of appeal against the notice issued by the third respondent and that without exhausting the said remedy, they have come up before this Court.
6. Admittedly, the land in question is required for public purpose, namely widening of the National Highways. Therefore, the third respondent issued notice to the appellants to vacate the said land. If the appellants are aggrieved by the said notice, the appellants had an alternative remedy of appeal before the competent authority and therefore, they ought to have preferred an appeal. But, the appellants, approached this Court to quash the notices issued by the respondents 2 and 3, without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal.
7. Taking note of the fact that the appellants have filed the writ petitions, without exhausting the remedy of appeal, the learned single Judge had rightly directed the appellants to prefer an appeal and also directed the competent authority to decide the appeal, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties and till such time, directed all the parties to maintain status quo.
8. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. However, the appellants are at liberty to prefer an appeal to the District Collector concerned within a period of one month time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.13101 of 2016 is closed.
Index : Yes/No (H.G.R., A.C.J.) (R.M.D.,J.) Internet : Yes/No 02.3.2017 kpl To
1. The District Collector Tirupur District Tirupur.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tirupur Division Tirupur.
3. The Tahsildar Avinashi Taluk Avinashi Tirupur District.
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and
R.MAHADEVAN,J.
kpl W.A.Nos.2190 to 2196 of 2010 02.3.2017.
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/S Senthil Electricals Rep By Its Partner M S Ramasamy Door No 71 vs The District Collector Tirupur District Tirupur And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 March, 2017
Judges
  • Huluvadi G Ramesh
  • R Mahadevan