A Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of Justice S. Anathi in the case of G. Rajeshkanna v. The District Collector & Ors. has observed that Tehsildar (Respondent 2) cannot take a plea of pendency of this Writ Petition when there was already another petition decided in the same matter and no documents were submitted by the accused in the same.
“The Tahsildar, Ettayapuram, cannot refuse to implement his own order dated 27.10.2020, by citing the pendency of the writ petition when there is no interim order granted in the writ petition nor any documents produced to substantiate the claim.”
Background of the Case
In this case, the Petitioner named G.Rajeshkanna was the Chinna Malai Kundru Village, Ettayapuram Taluk, Thoothukudi District. There was a main link road on which Mr. Baluchamy had done some illegal encroachment. The road was a public road and because of the encroachment, the citizens of the village were facing inconvenience in traveling.
Therefore, this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to lay the link road connecting the main road through the land in Survey No.360/14 situated at Chinna Malai Kundru Village, Ettayapuram Taluk, Thoothukudi District, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court observed that the present writ petition was filed in the nature of PIL as it was the main road and the local villagers had objected to the illegal occupation of Baluchamy on a public road. The Court also looked into the order passed by the Tehsildar (Respondent 2) on 27.10.2020. The order entails that:
“there is an encroachment in public road and in fact, the Tahsildar has directed that nobody can restrict the public from using the said road.”
In respect to the abovementioned order, Mr. Baluchamy (Respondent -3) had filed a petition before this Court in which the division bench ordered that:
“we find that the third respondent herein in respect of several opportunities has not produced any documents to substantiate his stand that he is entitled to the pathway, exclusively.”
The Court directed the Tehsildar that:
“he cannot refuse to implement his own order dated 27.10.2020 and to implement his order dated 27.10.2020 and if necessary, seek police assistance.”
Hence, the Court disposed of the petition without imposing any cost on it and expressed that if the third respondent produces any document to establish his right over the property, the same can be considered.
Case Details
Case: - W.P. (MD) No.7828 of 2021
Petitioner: - G.Rajeshkanna
Respondent: - The District Collector & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner: - Mr.S.Ramasamy
Counsel for Respondent: - Mr.K.Mu.Muthu
Judge: Justice S. Anathi
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFZZr5OfftCnKzBqemUkTKbTPo1JbNZzSjRg&usqp=CAU
