The petitioner challenged a notification categorizing his property as a prohibited area under the Ancient Monuments Act. The court found the petition was filed solely to circumvent an earlier joint survey order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 13.02.2017
Coram
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
W.P.No.3532 of 2017 and WMP No.3543 of 2017
Manoharan
[ PETITIONER]
Vs
[RESPONDENTS]
Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to withdraw the notification categorizing that the petitioners property measuring 14 cents comprised in Survey No. 277/15 Keelkaattalai Village (Madipakkam Part II Village) Pallavaram Taluk Kancheepuram District as Prohibited areas notified under the provisions of Ancient Mounments and archaeological sites and Remains Act as ancient monument or the archeological site and remains of national importance.
2
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandasudan For Respondent : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai Additional Government Pleader ORDER
The prayer in this petition is to direct the respondents to withdraw the notification categorizing that the petitioners property measuring 14 cents comprised in Survey No. 277/15 Keelkaattalai Village (Madipakkam Part II Village) Pallavaram Taluk Kancheepuram District as Prohibited areas notified under the provisions of Ancient Monuments and archaeological sites and Remains Act as ancient monument or the archaeological site and remains of national importance.
2.According to the petitioner, his property being classified as prohibited area as it falls within the range of 100 meters from the place declared as ancient monument and archaeological sites and he is unable to develop his own property. Further, the respondents issued notifications declaring certain areas as of national importance in which certain restrictions have been imposed. There is no heritage monuments of importance in survey numbers mentioned in the notification by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this petition to direct the respondents to release his property
3
from the purview of the said notification.
3.Heard both sides.
4.This writ petition is only filed to circumvent the earlier order of this court in W.P.No.38627 of 2016 dated 14.12.2016 ordering for joint survey the encroachments and the same is taking place. Accordingly, this court finds no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
13.02.2017
vri
4
B.RAJENDRAN,J.
vri
To
W.P.No.3532 of 2017
13.02.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition, filed to circumvent an earlier court order regarding joint survey of encroachments, has any merits.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoharan
The Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Government of Tamil Nadu
The Superintending archaeologist Archaeological Survey of India
The Commissioner, Pallavaram Municipality
B. RAJENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
