Dismissed

M.Dhanalakshmi v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Aug 2018WP(MD)/10341/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order regarding encroachment on Vaigai river bed. The court held the petitioner is an encroacher and found no merit in challenging the application of the Protection of Tanks Act given prior litigation history.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

M.Dhanalakshmi Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.08.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10341 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.9350 of 2018

M.Dhanalakshmi

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Ramanthapuram District Ramanathapuram.

¶11

The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk,Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Parthibanoor Check Dam Section, Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand R1 to R3 Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶17

This writ petition is directed against the impugned proceedings dated 03.04.2018 issued by the Assistant Engineer, third respondent herein, interalia, the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed therein are not applicable, as the petitioner's house is located in an extent of 510 sq. ft. in T.S.No.2 in the road margin of the service road connecting National Highway from Madurai to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rameshwaram.

¶18

¶19

This ground is wholly untenable and unjustifiable for the reason that when the petitioner came to this Court on an earlier occasion challenging the order dated 22.12.2017 issued against him in W.P.(MD) No.3039/2018, as she has allegedly encroached upon Vaigai river bed, it was specifically pleaded that notice should be issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. This Court, after accepting the case of the petitioner dealing with Section 6(1) of the Act and the Rules framed therein and taking reliance from a judgment of this Court in T.S.Senthilkumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2010) 10 MLJ 771 , has directed the same petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings dated 22.12.2017 as a notice, as though issued under Section 6(1) of the Act 2007. Accepting the order passed by this Court, the petitioner

¶20

Therefore, when the petitioner had already approached this Court in the first round of litigation in W.P.Nos.3039 and 6565/2018 and complained before this Court against the very same respondents that they have not followed the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, accepting the same, when this Court has directed the respondents to follow the provisions of the Act and consider the explanation/objection to be submitted by the petitioner, she cannot conveniently take a somersault in the third round of litigation that the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable against her. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶21

Moreover, the petitioner has not produced any title deeds, like4 sale deed, settlement deed, partition deed, etc., or revenue records, namely, patta, 'A' Register, etc., showing that she is not in Government poramboke land. Besides, the petitioner has put up a house on one side of vaigai river bed. Noticing that the petitioner has put up a house in Vaigai river bed and anticipating any mishap during rainy season, if Vaigai river overflows, that would wash away the petitioner's house, steps have to be taken to remove the encroachment and therefore, we do not find any substance in the prayer made in the writ petition. Since the petitioner is an encroacher of Vaigai river bed, we cannot show any indulgence as this would be a bad precedent and that would even change the water course of the river.

¶22

Before parting with this case, no doubt, the impugned order has been passed with stereotyped reasons. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been in Vaigai river poramboke land, which is prohibited for issuance of patta by the revenue authority or for the third respondent to allow them to continue to reside by building house therein. In that view of the matter, when this Court has directed the third respondent in its order dated 15.02.2018, in W.P.(MD) No.3039/2018, filed by the petitioner to receive the explanation and to pass an order, finding that the petitioner is admittedly residing in the vaigai river poramboke land, as per the revenue records showing that the petitioner is an encroacher in the Vaigai river poramboke https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ land, the authorities have also rejected the request of the petitioner, we are not able to find any merit in this petition.

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. SD

¶25

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CO )

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CS IV )

¶28

RR To 1. The District Collector, Ramanthapuram District Ramanathapuram. 2. The Tahsildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Paramakudi,Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Parthibanoor Check Dam Section, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 1CC TO MR. S. LOUIS, ADVOCATE SR 78795 DS SV SAR 4 3 10 2018 3P 5C W.P(MD)No.10341 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.9350 of 2018 14.08.2018

¶29

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

M.Dhanalakshmi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Dhanalakshmi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R.Vaishnavi, Vs the Bank Manager

J.Rani, W/O Jeevaraj, Vs the District Collector

S.Thangavel, S/O.Subbiah Vs the District Collector

R.Ramasamy Vs the District Collector

P. Manoj Kumar, Vs the District Collector

Manickavasagam Vs the District Collector