Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.RAMALINGAM versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.Ramalingam v. District Collector - W.A. No.1305 of 2002 [2007] RD-TN 331 (29 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



Dated: 29.01.2007

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Appeal No.1305 of 2002 K.Ramalingam ..Appellant Vs

1. The District Collector,

Tiruvannamalai District,

Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Block Development Officer/Commissioner,

Chetpet Panchayat Union,

Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The President,

Mandakolathur Village Panchayat,

Polur Taluk,

Tiruvannamalai District 606 904.

4. The Tahsildar,

Polur Taluk,

Polur,

Tiruvannamalai District 606 904.

5. Ranganathan ..Respondents Writ appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.03.2002 made in W.P.Nos.10137 of 2002.``````` For Appellant : J.Saravanavel For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.K.Elango, Special Government Pleader For 5th Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2002 made in W.P.No.10137 of 2002, in and by which, the learned single Judge, by observing that the petitioner is free to approach the appropriate Court to establish his right, title and possession with respect to the claim in question, has disposed of the writ petition. ``

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4.

3. It is not in dispute that the lands in question belongs to the third respondent-Panchayat. According to the appellant/petitioner, his father has planted trees in the land in question and now, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. It is also not in dispute that till this date, the petitioner has not obtained 2-C patta in respect of those trees. In such circumstances, we are of the view that if respondents 1 to 4 evict the appellant/petitioner, they are free to invoke the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act and take action in terms of the provisions. It is also made clear that the petitioner is free to approach the authorities concerned for appropriate relief viz., 2-C patta for the enjoyment of the trees.

4. With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. raa

To

1. The District Collector,

Tiruvannamalai District,

Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Block Development Officer/Commissioner,

Chetpet Panchayat Union,

Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The President,

Mandakolathur Village Panchayat,

Polur Taluk,

Tiruvannamalai District 606 904.

4. The Tahsildar,

Polur Taluk,

Polur,

Tiruvannamalai District 606 904.

[PRV/9434]


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.