1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:15.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petitioner (MD)No.12891 of 2011 Zamal Mohammed, S/o.Mohammed :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 4.Muniyammal, W/o.Velu 5.Sakthivel, S/o.Sathaiah 6.Sathaiah, S/o.Mariappan :Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the encroachment made by the 4th to 6th respondents herein in odai poromboke land in Survey No.189/1, situated at Solanthur Villge, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. For Petitioner : Ms.K.Elil Selvi For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Anandharaj, Govt.Advocate. ORDER [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. In view of the order which we propose to pass, we are of the view that no notice need be sent to respondents 4 to 6, as their interest also would be protected by this order. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 2.The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 4th to 6th respondents herein, who have made encroachments in odai poromboke land in Survey No.189/1, situated at Solanthur Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made a representation to the 3rd respondent, marking copies to respondents 1 and 2, as early as on 06.09.2011 pointing out the encroachments made by respondents 4 to 6 in Odai Poramboke in Survey No.189/1 at Solanthur village but, so far no action was taken either by the 3rd respondent or respondents 1 and 2 and hence the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with this petition with the aforesaid prayer. He would further submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.09.2011. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.In view of the limited prayer now made before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without going into the merits of the writ petition as well as the representation of the petitioner, this Court is constrained to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.09.2011, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to respondents 4 to 6 and other relevant parties and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of his representation again to the 3rd respondent, along with a copy of this order, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. gb RP/22.11.2011/2P/4C. ORDER IN WP(MD)No.12891 of 2011 Dated:15.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/