WP.17439/2020 K.Sampath Vs. The Collector Dated : 27/11/2020

This High Court judgement concerns a writ petition filed by K. Sampath challenging an order related to land encroachment. The petitioner had constructed on a portion of land and was issued an order under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. However, the petitioner had already filed an appeal against this order, along with a stay petition, before the Collector. The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the pending appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 27.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
WP.No.17439/2020 & WMP.No.21621/2020

K.Sampath .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Collector
Chennai District,
No.63, Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001.

2.The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
Land Encroachment B.Canal Division
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .. Respondents

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to forbear them from in any way interfering with the petitioner's possession of the land and building thereon at No.93, Wood Warf 2nd Lane in survey No.1282/9 part in Kondithope, Vepery Village, Chennai 600 079, particularly by way of dispossession or eviction, pending final determination of the appeal dated 20.11.2020 under Sec.10 & 10[B] of the Tamil Land Encroachment Act 1905 by the 1st respondent. 

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kamalesh Kannan
Government Advocate

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

(1) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

(2)Mr.M.Kamalesh Kannan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3)The petitioner challenges the impugned order issued under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 [hereinafter called as ''the Act''], alleging that he has encroached upon 700 sq.ft., of land in S.No.1282/9 [part] in Vepery, in the form of semi-pucca construction.

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments would submit that since the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy by filing an appeal under Section 10 of the said Act along with a petition for stay under Section 10-B before the 1st respondent, the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the said remedy and seeks the permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition. He also undertakes to send the endorsement in the form of E-Mail to the Registry of this Court to that effect.

To know more in details find the attchment file