Disposed

N.Subramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Dec 2020WP/16803/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an ex-serviceman challenging eviction notice alleging encroachment on land classified as a pond. Court did not decide merits of possession claims but directed authorities to grant personal hearing before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 21.09.2020 stayed; 3rd respondent directed to call for personal hearing, consider representations within 8 weeks, and pass orders on merits.

N.Subramani Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

WP.No.16803/2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 02.12.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
WP.No.16803 of 2020
and W.M.P.No.20823 of 2020
N.Subramani .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department,
rep.by its Secretary,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Anaikattu Panchayat Union,
Vellore District.

¶7

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

WP.No.16803/2020

¶10

4.The Tahsildar,

¶11

Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus Calling for the records of the thrid respondent in NA.KA.A8/986/2020 dated 21.9.2020, quash the same and direct the respondents to recognize the Petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 1.96 Acres in S. NO 88 in Madayapattu village, Serpadi post, Anaikattu taluk, vellore district and issue patta to the Petitoner for the land as per his representations, the last one being on 1.10.2020.

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms.R.Meenal
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4
ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman, so also his father and according

¶16

to the petitioner, his father came into possession of a waste land in SF.No.88 of Madayapattu village, Serpadi post, Anaikattu Taluk, Vellore

¶17

District, admeasuring an extent of 1.96 acres, even in the year 1940 and

¶18

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

WP.No.16803/2020

¶21

developed the land and started cultivation by raising guava trees as well as coconut trees. The petitioner would further submit that since his father is an Ex-serviceman, positive recommendation has also been made for assignment of land in his favour and the proposal is still pending. All of a sudden, to his shock and surprise, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 21.09.2020, purportedly invoking Section 131 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, informing the petitioner that he had encroached upon a Pond (a small waterbody) and in the light of the Government Order to reclaim and deepen the said waterbody, he has to be evicted and therefore, called upon him to vacate and deliver the peaceful possession of the said land within a period of two days, failing which appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law.

¶22

Ms.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Meenal,

¶23

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that admittedly, the petitioner as well as his father are Ex-serviceman and the father of the

¶24

petitioner came into possession of the land in question in the year 1940 and

¶25

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

WP.No.16803/2020

¶28

even at that time, it remained only as barren land and as such it is misnomer

¶29

to classify the land as a Pond. In the light of the fact that the land is used for raising crops etc., and also on account of the fact that positive recommendation made for assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner,

¶30

prays for appropriate orders.

¶31

Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶32

accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and would submit that

¶33

the revenue classification of the land in question remains as a Pond (small

¶34

waterbody) and since action is taken by the 3rd respondent in accordance

¶35

with law, petitioner cannot make any grievance and prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶36

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also

¶37

perused the materials placed before it.

¶38

Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court without

¶39

going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, either in his

¶40

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

WP.No.16803/2020

¶43

representation, or in this Writ Petition, directs the 3rd respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, who is also required to produce relevant and authenticated documents as to the alleged long possession and enjoyment and thereafter consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 01.12.2020, on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from

¶44

the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, shall defer

¶45

further decision in terms of the impugned notice dated 21.09.2020.

¶46

The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [M.S.N.,J] [R.H., J] 02.12.2020 sk Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No To 1.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶47

¶48

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶49

WP.No.16803/2020

¶50

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND R.HEMALATHA.,J sk

¶51

2.The District Collector,

¶52

Vellore District, Vellore.

¶53

3.The Block Development Officer,
Anaikattu Panchayat Union,
Vellore District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Vellore District.
W.P.No.16803 of 2020

¶54

02.12.2020

¶55

¶56

http://www.judis.nic.in

N.Subramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Subramani v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Palaniswamy Vs The District Collector

Shanmugadurai I Vs Authorised Officer

The Authorized officer South Indian Bank Ltd., Vs The District Collector

K.Navamani Vs The District Collector

N.Ravichandran Vs The Chairman

Adaikalasamy Aided Primary Vs Natrajan IAS