Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    G.Raman v. District Revenue officer

    WP No.7083 of 2023

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED: 22.09.2023

    CORAM

    THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

    AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU WP No.7083 of 2023

    G.Raman : Petitioner

    versus

    1.The District Revenue Officer, Ranipet District, Office of the DRO, Ranipet, 632 401

    2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet Revenue Division, RDO Office, Ranipet 632 401

    3.The Block Development Officer, Thimiri Panchayat Union, Thirmir, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet 632 401 4.The President,

    Thamaraipakkam Village Panchayat Thamaraipakkam, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet 632 401

    5.The Tahsildar, Arcot Taluk, Taluk Office, Arcot

    Ranipet 632 401

    6.Suresh : Respondents

    Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fifth respondent relating to the impugned order passed by him in No.O.Mu.Aa.1.3061/2021 dated

    Page 1 of 4

    02.12.2021 and quash the same nad direct the respondents to remove the encroachment committed by 6threspondent on public property at Thamaraipakkam Village, Arcot Taluk.

    For the Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Muralidharan

    For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mrs.R.Anitha, Spl.G.P. For Respondent No.6 : Mr.R.Veeramani

    ORDER

    (Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.K.M.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.R.Veeramani, learned counsel for the sixth respondent.

    2. The case of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent has encroached upon a public pathway. The petitioner seeks restoration of status-quo ante.

    3. If the encroachment is on a private property, writ cannot be issued; the petitioner has a remedy before the Civil Court. If it is on a public pathway, then the Government and/or the local authority has got powers to remove the encroachment.

    4. It appears that there is a feud between the petitioner and the sixth respondent; civil suits are pending between them for partition and separate possession. The petitioner and the sixth respondent are related to each other. As such, we are not entertaining the present writ petition on merits.

    Page 2 of 4

    5. Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader, submits that survey is conducted and further action, in accordance with the survey report, would be undertaken.

    6. In view of the said statement, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.7161 of 2023 is closed.

    (S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)

    22.09.2023

    Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

    To

    1.The District Revenue Officer, Ranipet District, Office of the DRO, Ranipet, 632 401

    2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet Revenue Division, RDO Office, Ranipet 632 401

    3.The Block Development Officer, Thimiri Panchayat Union, Thirmir, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet 632 401 4.The President,

    Thamaraipakkam Village Panchayat Thamaraipakkam, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet 632 401

    Page 3 of 4

    THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

    AND

    P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

    (tar)

    5.The Tahsildar, Arcot Taluk, Taluk Office, Arcot

    Ranipet 632 401

    WP No.7083 of 2023

    22.09.2023

    Page 4 of 4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    G.Raman v. District Revenue officer
    (Sep 22, 2023)