Dismissed

S.Nithyanandham v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/21048/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge in the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an elected council member. He found the petition was a poorly disguised repetition of a previously dismissed PIL regarding the same agricultural land development, violating the duty to disclose prior litigation.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Nithyanandham Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

W.P. NO. 21048 of 2014 &

¶6

M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶7

S. Nithyanandham ..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore.
2. The Member Secretary/
Deputy Director of
Town and Country Planning,
Vellore Region,
Santhuvacheri,
Vellore – 632 009.
3. The Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayats),
Arcot Panchayat Union,
Arcot, Vellore District.
4. The Sub-Registrar of Registration,
Arcot, Vellore District.
5. K. Ravi
6. Thiru K. Jaurilal Jain ..Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4^th respondent not to register the sale deeds or any other conveyance deeds in SF Nos. 238, 239, 240, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 257, 262, 282, 283, 370, 371, 372 & 374 including its sub-division of Nandhiyalam Village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District now named as "Ambalal Nandhavanam" without obtaining layout approval from the 2^nd respondent.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner :: Mr.S. Kamadevan

¶12

For Respondents:: Mr.R. Vijayakumar, AGP for R1 to R4 Mr.K.M. Ramesh for R5 Mr.T. Saikrishnan for M/s. Sai, Bharath & Elan for R6

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 4^th respondent, Sub-Registrar, not to register any sale deed in respect of certain survey numbers in Nandhiyalam Village, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District, without obtaining layout approval from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning.

¶15

Heard Mr.S. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R. Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and Mr.T. Saikrishnan, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶16

The petitioner is an elected council member of the 3^rd respondent Panchayat Union. Like a Holy Cow, he has come up with the above writ petition contending that without an approval from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, in terms of the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the 5^th respondent has given permission for the 6^th respondent to promote a layout in agricultural lands.

¶17

At first blush, the endeavour of the petitioner appears to be noble and laudable. But, it appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a PIL in W.P. No. 16828 of 2014 through a different counsel with a different prayer. The prayer in the said writ petition was for a mere direction to the District Collector to consider his representation and to take action against the President of the Panchayat and the 6^th respondent herein to cancel the "No Objection" certificate issued by the President. But, the fact remains that the ultimate goal of the petitioner in the PIL was also to see to it that the 6^th respondent does not convert agricultural lands into a layout of house sites and does not proceed with the development without obtaining layout approval from the 2^nd respondent. Unfortunately, the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 27.06.2014. But, the petitioner has not made a whisper about the same in this writ petition. Consequently, I granted an interim order of injunction

¶18

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

¶19

while admitting the writ petition. Being an elected representative of a Ward, the petitioner also has one more public duty, namely, to the Court, to disclose the filing of the previous writ petition and the dismissal of the same.

¶20

Though Mr. S. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prayer in the earlier writ petition was completely different and that the cause of action was also different, I have no doubt that this a different avatar of the same litigation, but poorly attired. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
nv
To
1. The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore.
2. The Member Secretary/
Deputy Director of
Town and Country Planning,
Vellore Region,
Santhuvacheri,
Vellore – 632 009.
3. The Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayats),
Arcot Panchayat Union,
Arcot, Vellore District.
4. The Sub-Registrar of Registration,
Arcot, Vellore District.
1 cc to Mr.K.M. Ramesh, Advocate, Sr. 42254
1 cc to M/s.Sai, Bharath & Ilan, Advocate, SR. 42314
1 cc to Mr.S. Kamadevan, Advocate, SR. 42359
W.P. No. 21048 of 2014
KM (CO)
kk 16/9

¶22

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

S.Nithyanandham v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S.Nithyanandham v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Karunakaran Vs The Sub Registrar

D.Keerthi, Vs The Secretary

Mohideen Haniff Vs The Chief Passport Officer

M.Dheen Lokeshwaran Vs the Union Government of

D.Selvaraj Vs The Revenue Divisional

K.R.Rohit (Minor) Vs Dr.R.G.Sukumar