Allowed

Kalyani v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Jul 2017WP(MD)/3094/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Madras High Court allowed the petition asking administrative authorities to enquire into alleged illegal red sand quarrying by the 6th respondent. The court directed the Assistant Director to conduct an enquiry after providing notice and a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the 4th respondent's report of 15.09.2011, conduct an enquiry after notice and hearing, and pass orders within six weeks.

Kalyani Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3094 of 2015

¶7

Kalyani ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Tirunelveli.
4. The Thasildar, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
5. The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
6. S.Arunthomas.	... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate action against the 6^th respondent herein for illegal red sand quarries in the petitioner's patta land in Survey No.421/1A for the extent of 11 acres 40 cents which is situated at V.K.Puram Village, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 to 5 Additional Government Pleader For Respondent 6 : Mr.R.T.Arivukumar

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate action against the 6^th respondent herein for illegal quarrying of red sand in the petitioner's patta land in Survey No.421/1A for the extent of 11 acres 40 cents which is situated at V.K.Puram Village, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent and also the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5.

¶15

3.The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the property with patta in Survey No.421/1A to an extent of 11 acres 40 cents at V.K.Puram Village, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, alleged that some illegal quarrying operation of red sand to the width of 5775 metres and the same has been transported illegally.

¶16

4.According to the petitioner, in the civil suit O.S.No.21 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District, on 20.08.2010, a decree as well as judgment in favour of the petitioner came to be passed against the 6^th respondent, who is alleged to have involved in illegal quarrying. The said judgment in O.S.No.21 of 2009 came to be challenged in A.S.No.75 of 2010 and the same was dismissed.

¶17

5.While things stood thus, the petitioner's representations dated 24.01.2011 & 15.02.2011 for taking appropriate action against the 6^th respondent for illegal quarrying, kept unattended and thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer/2^nd respondent herein, was directed by the Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Tirunelveli / the 3^rd respondent herein on 17.06.2011, to take appropriate action. Meanwhile, as directed, the Thasildar/4^th respondent inspected the property and ascertained that some illegal sand quarrying operations had been done. Accordingly, he communicated the same to the other respondents. Despite the same, no action has been taken. The petitioner once again submitted a representation dated 30.09.2014 for proper action.

¶18

6.The submission of illegal quarrying as alleged by the petitioner in this writ petition has been stoutly refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent. Hence to give quietus, the 3^rd respondent herein is hereby directed to consider the report submitted by the 4^th respondent on 15.09.2011 and conduct appropriate enquiry after due notice as well as an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to the 6^th respondent, and thereafter, within a period of six weeks,

¶19

¶20

necessary orders be passed.

¶21

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶27

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶28

The Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, Tirunelveli.

¶29

The Thasildar, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 5. The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶30

- 1 CC TO Mr.A.D.GANESHA MOORTHY, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 63539 + 1 CC TO Mr.R.T.ARIVUKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 63662

¶31

- 1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 63719

¶32

GK/SMN

¶33

TE/MR/SAR-I : 14/07/2017 : 3P/9C

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.3094 of 2015 05.07.2017

¶35

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

Kalyani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyani v. the District Collector

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

Y.Perinbam Vs the District Collector

N.E.Prakasham Vs the Tahsildar

Deepam Trust, Vs the Commissioner

Napoleon, S/O.Mariappan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Salma Beevi Vs the Conservator of Forest

J.Rajkumar Vs the District Collector