Disposed

V.Sadhanandham v. The District collector

Madras HC16 Oct 2020WP/14868/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Public Interest Litigation filed to prevent respondents from closing ponds in Vegakollai Village allegedly designated for cremation/burial. No merits were examined; the court ordered respondents to jointly inspect the lands within eight weeks and decide on the obliteration of water bodies.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Respondents 3-5 to conduct joint inspection of lands and determine action on obliteration of ponds within 8 weeks.

V.Sadhanandham Vs The District collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 16.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

WP.No.14868/2020 & WMP.No.18458/2020

V.Sadhanandham

.. Petitioner

Versus

The District Collector Cuddalore District.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶12

The Tahsildar Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶13

The VillageAdministrative Officer Vegakollai Village, Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶14

The Executive Officer Vegakollai Village Panchayat Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶16

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Panruti Division, Cuddalore District.

¶17

The Inspector of Police Kadampuliyur Police Station Panruti Division, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from drying up and closing the pond and tank named ''Vannankulam'' and ''Paavakulam'' in Survey No.232, Vegakollai Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, and from using the banks and shores in and around the said pond and tank for cremation or burial purposes.

¶19

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

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep For Respondents: Mr.M.Elumalai

¶21

Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

¶24

(2)Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

(3)The writ petition is styled as a Public Interest Litigation filed by a resident of Paavaikulam, Arasaradi Kuppam, Alagappa Samuthiram, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶26

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the ''A'' Register of Vegakollai Village and would submit that there are two natural ponds/tanks known as ''Paavaikulam'' and ''Vannankulam'' in S.No.232 and two kilometers away from the said ponds, there is a burial/cremation ground in S.No.254. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that a temple is also located in S.No.244 and the water from the said ponds/tanks is being used for temple purpose. The primordial submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a proposal to shift the burial/cremation ground from S.No.254 to S.No232 where two tanks/ponds are located and steps are being taken to obliterate the said water bodies and also drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs made available from page Nos.23 to 25 of the typed set of documents where it prima facie appears that the burial is taking place right adjacent to one of the water bodies. He would submit that though the attention of the concerned official respondents has been drawn in the form of representation dated 07.03.2020 and despite receipt and acknowledgment, nothing is moving forward and left with no other option only, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition styled as a public interest litigation.

¶27

(5)The Court heard the submissions of Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶28

(6)This Court, taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his representation or in this writ petition, directs the respondents 3 to 5 to cause joint inspection of the lands in S.Nos.232 and 254 of Vegakollai Village along with the relevant revenue records and depending upon the result of the inspection, shall take immediate, necessary and appropriate action in an objective manner, especially, addressing the grievance of the petitioner that two ponds located in S.No.232 of Vegakollai Village, are

¶29

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

¶30

also to be obliterated. The respondents 3 to 5 are directed to carry out the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner as well as to the person/s concerned, if any.

¶31

(7)The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector

¶38

Cuddalore District.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶40

3.The Tahsildar

¶41

Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶42

4.The VillageAdministrative Officer Vegakollai Village, Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District.

¶43

5.The Executive Officer

¶44

Vegakollai Village Panchayat

¶45

Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶46

6.The Superintendent of Police

¶47

Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶48

7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police

¶49

Panruti Division, Cuddalore District.

¶50

8.The Inspector of Police

¶51

Kadampuliyur Police Station

¶52

Panruti Division, Cuddalore District.

¶53

+1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No. 34769

WP.No.14868/2020

SVI(CO)

RMP(23/11/2020)

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

V.Sadhanandham v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sadhanandham 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manmohan Singh Jain, Vs The Authorized Officer

Dr.Anantharaj Vs The District Collector

R.Malarkodi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Ashraf Ali Vs The District Collector

Munusamy Vs The Secretary to Government

Smm.Mohammed Shashul Hameed Vs Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority