Disposed

K. Noorul Hammen v. The State Government

Madras HC13 Apr 2016WP/13711/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the District Collector to inquire into the petitioner's alleged long-standing encroachment on government land and dispose of his representation. The court mandates that the Collector consider utilizing the land for a school while protecting existing coconut trees, if any, without uprooting them, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to inquire into the representation, ascertain facts regarding encroachment, consider land usage for a school without disturbing coconut trees, and pass orders within th

K. Noorul Hammen Vs The State Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 13.04.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.13711 of 2016

¶6

K.Noorul Hammen ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Government, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Land and Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

¶9

The District Collector, Nagapattinam District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Sirkali, Nagapattinam District.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second and third respondents to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner on 16.03.2016.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ranganathan

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan

¶15

Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.G.Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Lakshminarayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepting notice for respondents. With the consent of parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶18

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the second and third respondents to dispose of his representation, dated 16.03.2016.

¶19

The petitioner is admittedly an encroacher of Government Poramboke Land, which is to be stated as "Thoppe Poramboke". The petitioner is said to have raised coconut trees

¶20

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

¶21

in the said land, and now, he claims that the Government cannot utilize the land for construction of a School building. Firstly, basis on which, the petitioner claims the land itself, is not sustainable, since the petitioner has no vested right over the property in question, since he is an encroacher of Government property. Secondly, it is not known as to why the Revenue Officials, especially, the Tahsildar/third respondent and the Village Administrative Officer of Melasalai Village have turned a blind eye to such encroachment, when the petitioner has claimed that he has planted more than 40 coconut saplings about 50 years back, and as on today, the coconut trees are in a fully grown state and it is now a coconut grove.

¶22

Considering the above facts, the District Collector should enquire into the matter, and ascertain as to how the petitioner was permitted to encroach into the Government land, and raised coconut trees in the land, and the other aspect is that, if the land is to be utilized for some other purpose, then the District Collector should also consider, without disturbing the coconut trees, if in existence, whether the land could be put to use for different purpose, if permissible under law. Therefore, only to the aforesaid extent, there will be a direction to the District Collector/Second respondent to take note of the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.03.2016, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶23

It is made clear that this order should not be misunderstood or misinterpreted, as if, it is an order giving protection to the petitioner, but it is only to ensure that the Government land is protected, and while carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the District Collector shall ascertain, if there are standing trees and crops, the same shall also be protected and the land could be put to use for different purpose, without uprooting or cutting down the trees. The above direction be complied with by the second respondent/District Collector within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

The Secretary to Government, State Government, Land and Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

¶33

The District Collector, Nagapattinam District.

¶34

The Tahsildar, Sirkali, Nagapattinam District.

¶35

- 1 cc to MR.G. Ranganathan, Advocate Sr.23076 + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.23505

¶36

Writ Petition No.13711 of 2016
KJI(CO)
Eu 25.04.16

¶37

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

K. Noorul Hammen v. The State Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Noorul Hammen v. The State Government

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

Onnukurikki, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

M/s.Kanishk Metal Recycling Vs The Chairman and Managing

M.Ganesan Vs P.George

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

V.Ramakrishnan, Vs St.of T.N.Rep.by the Dy.Secy.

The Mangement, Vs the Presiding Officer