Disposed

Seetharaman, v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Jan 2013WP(MD)/1038/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition seeking directions to protect communal land from Panchayat construction. The Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation after an opportunity of hearing and maintained the status quo for 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation after opportunity of hearing; status quo maintained for 12 weeks; connected MT closed.

Seetharaman, Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2013

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.1038 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013

¶6

Seetharaman ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶9

2.The Assistant Director, District Rural Development, Tirunelveli.

¶10

3.The Commissioner, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

4.The President, Perumalpatti Panchayat, Karivalamvandanallur Via, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to keep communal lands of 112 square metres in S.No.433/27, in Perumalpatti Revenue Village, in Sankarankovil Taluk, in Tirunelveli District for the communal uses of the people of Perumalpatti Village as usual.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugne For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja 1 and 2 Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah 3 and 4

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA and P.DEVADASS, JJ

¶17

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking to issue a direction, directing the respondents to keep communal lands of 112 square metres in S.No.433/27, in Perumalpatti Revenue Village, in Sankarankovil Taluk, in Tirunelveli District for the communal uses of the people of Perumalpatti Village.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 3 and 4. By mutual consent, the main

¶19

¶20

Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the village Perumalpatti, a vacant site in Natham Survey No.433/27 to an extent of 112 Square metres was used by the villagers of Perumalpatti for communal uses. It is contended that in the said place earlier there was a school run by one Gurusamy Pillai and Packiam Pillai. Thereafter, they could not run the school and the Panchayat taken over the school. Subsequently, the school was shifted to some other building and in the said vacant common place the panchayat is now making preparation to put up a construction for having their officer. The learned counsel would further contend that in such an event, the villagers would be affected and as such the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 28.12.2012. As no action has been taken, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with the present Writ Petition.

¶22

Heard Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent 3 and 4 on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that in the common space, namely, vacant site meant for the use of public, namely, celebration of festival and other celebration by the community people of the village and the same is attempted to be used by the panchayat by putting up some construction and as such they sought for a direction from this Court to save the said space by preventing the panchayat from putting up construction. It is seen that the petitioner has also preferred a representation dated 28.12.2012, to the first respondent and in view of the same, it is suffice for this Court to direct the first respondent to consider the said representation, by affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as to other relevant parties.

¶25

Accordingly, this Court without going into the merits of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2012, constrained to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2012, by affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as to other relevant parties by serving notice on them and by affording opportunity to them and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the status-quo as on date in respect of the above said vacant site to an extent of 112 square metres in S.No.433/27, Perumal Pattai Revenue Village shall be maintained.

¶26

The petitioner is also directed to submit a fresh copy of the representation dated 28.12.2012, to the first respondent within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 is closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Deputy Registrar (W)

¶30

/True Copy/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

To:

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶34

2.The Assistant Director, District Rural Development, Tirunelveli.

¶35

3.The Commissioner, Sankarankovil Panchayat Union, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

4.The President, Perumalpatti Panchayat, Karivalamvandanallur Via, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶37

- 1 CC to Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Advocate vide SR.No.2487 Writ Petition (MD) No.1038 of 201 3

¶38

GDR 31.01.2013 3P/6C

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Seetharaman, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seetharaman, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs Subbalakshmi Lakshmipathy

Ramaraj Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M. Abraham, Vs the District Collector

M. Sasi, Vs the District Collector

S. Santha, Vs the Chief Executive Engineer

Sagunthala, Vs the District Collector