Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2154 (MAD)

V. Udaya Suriyan v. District Collector

2014-07-17

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ petition, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 10.07.2014, and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings had been issued by the third respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. He had further submitted that the property of the petitioner is situated in Survey No.151/1, in Mela Thulukkankulam Village, Nandhikundu Panchayat, Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that, under the guise of issuing the impugned proceedings, relating to Survey No.151/3, which is said to be a cart track poramboke, the third respondent is attempting to demolish the residential building of the petitioner, existing in Survey No.151/1. 5. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings, dated 10.07.2014, issued by the third respondent may be treated as a 'notice' to the petitioner and that the petitioner may be directed to submit his explanation to the said notice, within the time limit specified by this Court. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, we find it appropriate to direct the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings, dated 10.07.2014, issued by the third respondent, as a notice and to submit his explanation to the said notice, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to submit his explanation, within the time limit specified by this Court, it would be open to the respondents to initiate appropriate steps to remove the alleged encroachment, by following the procedures established by law. 7. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to submit his explanation, within the time limit specified by this Court, it would be open to the respondents to initiate appropriate steps to remove the alleged encroachment, by following the procedures established by law. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.