Dismissed

D.Kumaravel v. The Coastal Aqua Culture

Madras HC24 Jun 2016WP/21729/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed writ petitions filed by shrimp farm owners challenging coercive eviction steps taken by the District Collector. The court held that the grievance lies against the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order, not the Collector's implementation, and referred parties to the NGT or Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to approach the National Green Tribunal or the Supreme Court.

D.Kumaravel Vs The Coastal Aqua Culture — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.06.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶7

W.P. Nos.21729 to 21735 of 2016 D.Kumaravel .. Petitioner in W.P.21729/2016 Pulikesi .. Petitioner in W.P.21730/2016 Vinayagamurthy .. Petitioner in W.P.21731/2016 Udhayakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.21732/2016 Sankar .. Petitioner in W.P.21733/2016 Ramalingam .. Petitioner in W.P.21734/2016 Ravichandran .. Petitioner in W.P.21735/2016 -vs1.The Coastal Aqua Culture Authority, Shastri Bhavan, IInd Floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexure, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The District Collector Villupuram District 3.The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar Marakkanam, Villupuram District. .. Respondents in all WPs.

¶8

Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the District Collector, Villupuram District, the 2nd respondent herein culminating in file No.1155/B/2015 dated 13.06.2016, quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive steps in evicting the petitioners from their respective Shrimp Farms in Survey Nos.668/2, 667/1, an extent of 1.90.5 ha. in Nadukuppam Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District; in Survey Nos. 40/6-10 an extent of 0.68.5 ha. in Anumanthai Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District; in Survey No.650/2 an extent of 0.89.0 ha. in Nadukuppam Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District; in Survey No.25/1-8 an extent of 0.58.0 ha.

¶9

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

¶10

in Anumanthai Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District; in Survey Nos. 648/2 646/3 to 7, 643, 640/12 and 639/2 an extent of 3.86.5 ha. in Nadukuppam Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District; in Survey Nos. 37/1-2 40/5A 5B 42/1.3 an extent of 1.26.5 ha. in Anumanthai Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District; and Survey Nos. 608/3 to 7, 610/1, 612/1, 611/1, 610/2, 609 an extent of 7.38.0 ha. in Chettikuppam Village Marakkanam Taluk Villupuram District.

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.Su.Srinivasan Asst. Solicitor Genl., for R-1 : Mr.S.T.S.Murthi,Govt. Pleader, asst. by Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, G.A., for RR 2 and 3

¶12

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

The authorities have really acted in pursuance to the order of the National Green Tribunal, Chennai Bench and thus, the petitioners should have approached the said Bench instead of approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the grievance of an order being passed behind their back. In any case, in substance, what is sought to be assailed here really cannot be the order of the District Collector, who only implemented the order of the National Green Tribunal. The grievance is against the order of the NGT dated 13.06.2016.

¶14

2.In view of the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34199 of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 (P.S.Jayachandran and another vs. Member Secretary, TNPCB, Chennai and others), the order of the National Green Tribunal cannot be assailed before us.

¶15

3.The writ petition is thus dismissed with liberty either to approach the National Green Tribunal with the grievance or in case the petitioners seek to assail that order, to do so before the Honourable Supreme Court.

¶16

4.The writ petitions accordingly stand dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. sra

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶18

True Copy

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.The Coastal Aqua Culture Authority, Shastri Bhavan, IInd Floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexure, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006

¶23

2.The District Collector Villupuram District

¶24

3.The Tahsildar Office of the Tahsildar Marakkanam, Villupuram District.

¶25

7 ccs to Mr.K.Balakrishnan, Advocate SR 35286 to 35292
+ 1 cc to Govt.Pleader, High Court, Madras SR 35372
bvr(co)
prk24/6 W.P.Nos.21729 to 21735 of 2016

¶26

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

D.Kumaravel v. The Coastal Aqua Culture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Kumaravel v. The Coastal Aqua Culture

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Venkatesh, Vs the Commissioner

People Rights Protection Vs State Rep. by the Principal

Smt.R.Krishnaveni Ranganathan Vs the District Collector

K.Baskar Vs The General Manager

M.Tamilselvan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Srinivason, Vs Board of Control for Cricket