Writ petition filed to quash a rejection letter regarding permission for reclamation works. Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to respondents for fresh consideration after hearing parties.
Impugned order No.G.M.1/781/2013 set aside; matter remitted to respondents for fresh consideration within six weeks.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.6877 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2014
M.Neelavanan, ... Petitioner
-vs-
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned letter sent by the second respondent letter No.G.M.1/781/2013 dated --. 11.2013 and quash the same as illegal and thereby directing these respondents to permit this petitioner to do the reclamation works in 0.28.5 hectares in S.No.163/5 and 0.89.0 hectares in S.No.163/7 in Keelanattukuruchi revenue village in Ettaiyapuram Taluk in Thoothukudi District and consequently to lift, the removed sand and other debris from the above lands, to outer places.
For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned reply sent by the second respondent in letter No.G.M.1/781/2013 dated --.11.2013 pursuant to the application made by the petitioner under RTI Act and in the reply, it has been stated that permission for excavation of sand cannot be granted. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to do the reclamation works in 0.28.5 hectares in S.No.163/5 and 0.89.0 hectares in S.No.163/7 in Keelanattukuruchi revenue village in Ettaiyapuram Taluk in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thoothukudi District with further direction to lift the removed sand and other debris from the above lands to outer places.
2
i) The petitioner has been owning agricultural lands of 0.28.5 hectares in S.No.163/5 and 0.89.0 hectares in S.No.163/7 in Keelanattukuruchi revenue village in Ettaiyapuram Taluk in Thoothukudi District, which are punja lands and not suitable for cultivation.
ii) The petitioner, with an intention to improve the lands by carrying out reclamation works in the lands so as to make the same suitable for agriculture, sought permission from the first respondent in the prescribed format.
iii) Since there was no response on the application submitted by him and later on, he was informed to contact the 2nd respondent for reply, he sent an application under RTI Act to know the status of his application, for which, an information was sent to him by the order impugned herein, stating that his application was rejected. Aggrieved by the action of the second respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
3
learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
Assistant Registrar (CO)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To:
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thoothukudi District.
4
RM/AR
PSM/KP/SAR2/18.07.2017/4P/6C
W.P(MD)No.6877 of 2014 06.07.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether reclamation works on agricultural land can be construed as illegal quarrying requiring permission.
M. Neelavanan
The District Collector, Tirunelveli District
The Assistant Director Geological and Mines Department, Thoothukudi
The Tahsildar, Ottapidaram Taluk
R. Mahadevan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
