1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Writ Petition (MD) No.8160 of 2011 M.Vairamani ... Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Peraiyur,Madurai District. 3.The President, Vandai Panchayat, Sedapatti Union, Madurai District. 4.K.Veeranan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.3625/2011/A1 dated 09.05.2011 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment made in the public well situated in the Survey No.116/5 in Alagarkoil Street (South street) in Anaikaraipatti Village by the fourth respondent herein. For Petitioners .. Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan For Respondents .. Mr.K.Mahendran Spl. Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.JYOTHIMANI, J.) This writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent, dated 09.05.2011, wherein, the Tahsildar, as per the direction given by this Bench, in W.P.(MD) No.7520 of 2010, after conducting an elaborate enquiry has found on record that there was no encroachment and the land has been treated as Ryotwari Punja lands. It is also stated in the said impugned order of the second respondent that in spite of the steps taken by the second respondent to serve on the petitioner, the petitioner has refused to receive the notice and has informed the second respondent that he will receive the notice only after getting approval from his Advocate. The main reason that has been stated for filing of the present writ petition is that the same Tahsildar by an earlier order, dated 16.07.2010, has given a finding that there was encroachment and after the order of the Division Bench of this Court, he has changed his views in the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. To a reference to the impugned order dated 09.05.2011, there is absolutely nothing to show that the Tahsilar has stated that there is encroachment in existence. In such view of the matter, we do not agree with the contention raised by the petitioner, while impugning the order passed by the Tahsildar. Accordingly, there is nothing to interfere with the order of the second respondent and the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, however, liberty is always given to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Peraiyur,Madurai District. 3. The President, Vandai Panchayat, Sedapatti Union, Madurai District. +1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.26401 Order Made in WP(MD) No.8160 of 2011 04.08.2011 RR PA/19.08.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/