Allowed

E.Thangasamy Raja, v. Mr. Subramanian

Madras HC1 Apr 2015SUB A(MD)/90/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order allowing an application to renew a private weekly market licence held by the petitioner on Saturdays, directing the respondent panchayat to issue the permit within two weeks. The renewal was granted despite ongoing acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to renew the private weekly market licence on Saturdays in the petitioner's land within two weeks.

E.Thangasamy Raja, Vs Mr. Subramanian — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶2

Wednesday, the First day of April Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

SUB A(MD) Nos.90 and 96 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013

¶6

E.THANGASAMY RAJA ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN SUB.A(MD) No.90 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013

¶7

AND RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN SUB.A(MD) No.96 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013

¶8

¶9

MR. SUBRAMANIAN, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ETTAIYAPURAM SPECIAL VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, NOW ETTAIYAPURAM SELECTION GRADE TOWN PANCHAYAT, ETTAIYAPURAM, TUTICORIN ...CONTEMNOR/RESPONDENT IN

¶10

SUB.A(MD) No.90 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013 AND PETITIONER IN SUB.A(MD) No.96 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013

¶11

Petitions praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

¶12

direct the respondent to renew the licence to conduct private weekly market in favour of the petitioner on Saturdays in his land in door NO. 175, 176, 177, ward NO. 6, Ettayapuram, Thoothukudii District, (SUB.A(MD) No.90 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013)

¶13

accept my affidavit and direct the Panchayat to complete the acquisition process in accordance to law (SUB.A(MD) No.96 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013) pending disposal of the above SUB A(MD) Nos.90 and 96 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013

¶14

ORDER : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.MAHABOOB ATHIFF, Advocate for M/S. AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate for APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN SUB.A(MD) No.90 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013 AND RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN SUB.A(MD) No.96 of 2015 IN CONT P(MD) No.461 of 2013 and of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M/S.S.M.S.JOHNNY BASHA, Advocate for M/S.S.SRIMATHY, Advocate for EB the Court made the following order:-

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

2.The petitioner in Sub Application (MD) No.90 of 2015 was allowed to hold Private Weekly Market for the sale of sheep and goats on every Saturdays in his land. In fact, his ancestors are doing the same for the past 100 years. The weekly market was held at Saturdays on D.No.175, 176, 177, Ward No.6, Ettayapuram Town Panchayat, owned by the petitioner. License in this regard was issued every year by the respondent Town Panchayat.

¶17

3.When an application was filed for renewal of license for the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1998, the same was rejected by an order dated 27.02.1997. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4131 of 1997 before the Principal Bench and the same was allowed by an order dated 02.09.1997. The respondent filed W.A.No.1169 of 1997. But, the writ appeal was dismissed by an order dated 21.10.1997.

¶18

4.Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence on 19.11.1997. Again, the respondent rejected the renewal of licence on 21.11.1997. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18910 of 1997 and the same was allowed on 27.10.1998. The writ appeal preferred by the respondent in W.A.No.1535 of 1998 was dismissed on 24.08.1999. The respondent filed S.L.P.No.19090 of 1999. The Apex Court dismissed the same on 20.04.2000.

¶19

5.Again, when the petitioner filed another application for renewal of licence on 26.02.1999, the same was rejected. The petitioner filed W.P.No.7092 of 1999. The same was allowed by this Court on 04.10.1999.

¶20

6.Again, application made for renewal was rejected vide order dated 27.05.2002. The petitioner filed W.P.No.40814 of 2002. This time also writ petition was allowed on 11.03.2004. The respondent filed W.A.No.3518 of 2004. The writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶21

7.While so, the petitioner filed Cont. P(MD) No.196 of 2005. The petitioner was granted license on 09.11.2005 and permitted to hold weekly market on every Saturday till March 2006.

¶22

8.However, before the expiry of the period of license, again, the respondent cancelled the license by an order dated 08.12.2005. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.11405 of 2005 and obtained stay.

¶23

9.While so, a notification dated 11.11.2005 was issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declaring that the panchayat alone to have rights to hold private market on Saturday. W.P.(MD) NO.1059 of 2006 was filed to quash the notification and interim stay was obtained.

¶24

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

¶25

10.License granted on 09.11.2005 expired on 31.03.2006. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application on 27.02.2006 for renewal of license. The respondent rejected the same by an order dated 24.03.2006, citing the notification declaring exclusive rights of the panchayat to hold the market. Hence, W.P.(MD) No.3211 of 2006 was filed, challenging the said order.

¶26

11.The petitioner preferred an application for renewal of license and the same was also rejected. The petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No.7093 of 2007, challenging the said rejection order. The aforesaid writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.11405 of 2005, 1059 and 32 11 of 2006 and 7093 of 2007, were allowed, by setting aside the impugned orders on 13.12.2011 by a common order and directing the respondents to consider the application to hold private weekly market in the petitioner's land.

¶27

12.While so, since the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed Cont. P.(MD) No.461 of 2013. The respondent filed Writ appeal and and Division Bench refused to grant stay. Hence, the petitioner filed Sub A(MD) No.90 of 2015 to renew licence to conduct private weekly market in favour of the petitioner on Saturdays in his land in Door Nos.175, 176 and 177, Ward No.6, Ettayapuram, Thoothukudi District during the pendency of the contempt petition.

¶28

13.The respondent has also filed Sub A(MD) No.96 of 2015, to accept the affidavit and direct the panchayat to complete the acquisition process in accordance with law.

¶29

14.This Court passed an order as early as on 13.12.2011, directing the respondent to renew the licence and also it was held therein that it was their right to acquire the lands of the petitioner to hold marker. So far even after four years, the rights of the petitioner in holding weekly market was not acquired in the manner known to law and also the petitioner was not granted renewal of licence to hold the market. Earlier, a series of order passed by this Court and the Apex Court has also confirmed the same at one point as stated above. Therefore, I am of the view that the application filed by the petitioner in Sub Application (MD) NO.90 of 2015 has to be allowed.

¶30

15.Accordingly, Sub A(MD) No.90 of 2015 is allowed and the respondent is directed to renew the licence to conduct private weekly market in favour of the petitioner on Saturdays in his land in Door Nos.175, 176 and 177, Ward No.6, Ettayapuram, Thoothukudi District, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

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

¶32

16.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the process of acquisition is going on and she produced paper publication dated 26.03.2014 to show that steps are taken for acquisition. This cannot be a reason for not renewing the licence, particularly, when this Court passed the order four years back and also passed series of orders as stated above. The application filed by the respondent in Sub A(MD) No.96 of 2015 is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶33

/ TRUE COPY /

¶34

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶35

¶36

MR. SUBRAMANIAN, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ETTAIYAPURAM SPECIAL VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, NOW ETTAIYAPURAM SELECTION GRADE TOWN PANCHAYAT, ETTAIYAPURAM, TUTICORIN.

¶37

+1. C.C. to M/S.S.SRIMATHY, Advocate SR.No.16795 +One cc to M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate, SR.No.16831 RL/4C – 8/4/2015

¶38

SUB A(MD) Nos.90 &96 of 2015

¶39

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

E.Thangasamy Raja, v. Mr. Subramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Thangasamy Raja, v. Mr. Subramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Premalatha Vs G.Karunakaran

M. Kavitha, W/O. Marimuthu, Vs K. Marimuthu

Saraswathi, W/O. Murugan, Vs Murugan, S/O. Karuppaiah

R.Moorthirajan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Mr.M.Gandhi Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Jaisankar Vs The Joint Registrar of