Madras High Court
K.Nagasundaram vs The District Collector on 26 February, 2024
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, G.Ilangovan
W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018
K.Nagasundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Municipality of Rameswaram,
Rep.By its Commissioner,
Rameswaram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar,
O/o.The Tahsildar,
Rameswaram.
4.Gnana Sahayaraj
5.Babu
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018
6.Berkmans
7.Dharma
8.Aruldass
9.Panja .. Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to
remove the encroachments made by respondent No.4 to 9 in Survey
No.126/2 to an extent of about 30 cents at Rameswaram Village,
Rameshwaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar – for R1 & R3
Government Pleader
Mr.M.Kannan – for R2
Mr.M.Jerin Mathew – for R4 & R5
Mr.A.Haja Mohideen – for R6 to R9
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE] We have heard Mr.S.Rajasekar learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 5 W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018 for the respondents 1 and 3, Mr.M.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, Mr.M.Jerin Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 9.
2. The encroachment is alleged in Survey No.126/2.
According to the petitioner, the same is a pathway.
3. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the Municipality, four encroachers have already removed their encroachments. The encroachment alleged against the present respondents is already removed. There are two other persons, who are not parties to the Writ Petition having encroached and the Municipality is required to take appropriate steps in that regard.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9 submits that these respondents are poor fisherman, who only put their nets for the purpose of their livelihoods and they have their small shops behind the residence of the petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, the respondents 6 to 9 may approach the Municipality for a proper place for their business which application ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5 W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018 shall be considered by the Municipality on its own merits.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
[S.V.G., C.J.] [G.I., J.]
26.02.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
RM
To
1.The District Collector,
O/o.District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Municipality of Rameswaram, Rep.By its Commissioner, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Tahsildar, O/o.The Tahsildar, Rameswaram.
____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5 W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and G.ILANGOVAN, J.
RM W.P(MD)No.9091 of 2018 26.02.2024 ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5