1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD)No.13075 of 2011 P.Rengasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Vedenchendur Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to remove the encroachment, as per the direction issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6028/2010 A2, dated 27.08.2010 and taking into account the representation, dated 20.10.2011. For Petitioner : Ms.A.Rajini For Respondents : Mr.V.Pandi, Govt.Advocate. O R D E R [Order of the Court was made BY K.N.BASHA, J] Mr.V.Pandi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2.The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent to remove encroachments, as per the direction issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.6028/2010 A2, dated 27.08.2010 and taking into account the representation, dated 20.10.2011. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already given a representation on 20.10.2011 to the 3rd respondent seeking removal of encroachments and the 2nd respondent has also issued direction for removal encroachments, but till date no action was taken by the 3rd respondent and hence the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with this petition with the aforesaid prayer. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner as well the other materials available on record. 6.In view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the representation of the petitioner and without expressing any view on such representation, this Court is constrained to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.10.2011, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the alleged encroacher and other relevant parties and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear the said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR gb To: 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. 3.The Tahsildar, Vedenchendur Taluk, Dindigul District. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 40-329: 1CC TO MR. A. RAJINI, ADVOCATE, SR: 40039: DM::2011:DECEMBER:01:: ORDER IN WP(MD)No.13075 of 2011 Dated:17.11.2011 2P:6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/