Disposed

A.Ranganathan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Feb 2018WP(MD)/2765/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest litigation, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, without adjudicating on merits, directed revenue and PWD officials to inspect encroachments on a water course and report, directing them to remove encroachments within ten weeks in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 3 and 4 to inspect the water body for encroachments, afford notice to encroachers, and take action within ten weeks.

A.Ranganathan, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.02.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶4

W.P(MD)No.2765 of 2018

¶5

A.Ranganathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. 5.Muthukalai 6.Alagarsamy 7.Munichamy .. Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the encroachments and to restore the water courses that originally existed in the Kunnathoor Periya Kanmoi comprised in S.No.1/1 at kalimangalam Village, Kunnathoor Pirka & Revenue, Madurai East Taluk, Kariyapatti Taluk, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶8

ORDER

¶9

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By consent, the main writ petition itself, is taken up for final disposal.

¶11

¶12

Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.

¶13

This Writ Petition is styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. The petitioner, who is a resident of Oovalur Village, Kalimangalam Post, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District, would aver among other things that he is an agricultural coolie and eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural wok and according to him, more than 1200 acres of land situate in and around their village depend upon the water for irrigation from 'Periya Kanmoi' and it is maintained by Public Works Department as well as by the Revenue Department and the farmers of three villages namely, Kunnathur, Kalimangalam and Oovaloor, are using the said water for irrigation purposes.

¶14

It is the specific case of the petitioner that some portion of the said water body had been encroached by the encroachers including the respondents 5 to 7 and they started cultivating vegetables and in that process, they are also using pesticides and as and when the said pesticides accumulate in the said water body, the said water becomes poisonous and also resulting in pollution.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the cattles, which used to drink water from the said water body died on account of the said pollution and in the light of the said pollution, at one point of time, the entire water body would become useless and in this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 20.04.2015, to the first respondent.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that repeatedly memo has been sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, to the Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, on 29.04.2015 and 15.07.2015 in e.f.vz;.3226/2015/m and e.f.vz;.39739/2015/n$> to take appropriate action and inform the same to the office and despite that, the third respondent for the reasons best known to them, have not taken any action and hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.

¶17

This Court heard the submissions of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4.

¶18

Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in this Writ Petition or in his representation, directs the respondents 3 and 4, to cause inspection of 'Periya Kanmoi' at Madurai East Taluk, to find out whether there are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ encroachments and that encroachments are in the form of agricultural field or construction and depending upon the result of the said

¶19

¶20

inspection, they are directed to take appropriate action against the encroachers including the private respondents 5 to 7 and other encroachers if any, after putting them on notice, in accordance with law, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 to 7 and the other encroachers if any.

¶21

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶23

To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District. 4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Thallakulam, Madurai – 2. +One cc to Mr.S.Rajamohan, Advocate, SR.No.47771 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.48672 pm RL/7C/3P/SV/MMS/SAR2/22/2/2018

¶24

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.2765 of 2018

¶25

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

¶26

12.02.2018

A.Ranganathan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ranganathan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Kumaresan Vs the District Collector

G.Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

T.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

Rathinam Vs the District Collector

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam Vs the District Collector

M. Muthupandi Vs the District Collector