Dismissed

C.Venkatraman, v. The District Collector

Madras HC6 Oct 2021WP/12391/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Madras dismissed the petitioners' prayer for an injunction to stop acquisition of their properties. The Court held that injunctions are not available in writ proceedings when the government is empowered to acquire land for public usage, noting acquisition steps had not yet commenced.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood dismissed; connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions closed. No Costs.

C.Venkatraman, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.NO.12391 OF 2016

¶6

AND

¶7

W.M.P.NOS.10727 OF 2016 & 6656 OF 2017

1. C.Venkatraman

2. Arumugam

3. Devanathan

4. Kannan

...Petitioners

¶13

Vs

¶14

1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶15

2. The Special Thasildhar, Adidravaidar Welfare, Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.

¶16

3. The Sub-Inspector of police, Tirunavalur Police Station, Tirunavalur, Ulundurpet taluk, Villupuram District.

¶17

.... Respondents

¶18

[P1-Disd as abated vide Court order dated 04.02.2021]

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing
the respondents from in any way interfering with the petitioners
property in S.No.172/20, 172/21, 174/2, 174/4A, 174/4B, 173/8C,
174/10, 174/11 and 174/3A including service connection No.545
situate in S.No.172/20 all the properties are situate in
Paathoor village, Ulundurpet Taluk and also thereby direct the
respondents not to coerce the petitioners to hand over their
properties for the pathway in the Village.

¶20

For Petitioners:Mrs.Aishwarya (for P2 to P4)
 for Mr.N.Suresh

¶21

ForRespondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
 Government Advocate

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to
forbear the respondents from in any way interfering with the
petitioners property in S.No.172/20, 172/21, 174/2, 174/4A,
174/4B, 173/8C, 174/10, 174/11 and 174/3A including service
connection No.545 situate in S.No.172/20, all the properties
are situate in Paathoor village, Ulundurpet Taluk and also
thereby to direct the respondents not to coerce the petitioners
to hand over their properties for the pathway in the Village.

¶25

2. The petitioners state that they are the absolute
owners of the properties, in S.No.172/20 and 172/21, in
Paathoor village, Ulundurpet Taluk and the authorities are
initiating steps to negotiate acquire the land connected with
the petitioners, for the purpose of creation of pathway, so as
to provide road to reach the Burial Ground. Therefore, the
petitioners are constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶26

3. This Court is of the considered opinion that such a
relief in the nature of an injunction cannot be granted in a
writ proceedings. The relief sought for is to forebear the
respondents from interfering with the property of the
petitioners. No doubt, the petitioners have got a property
right. However, such right is subject to Acquisition Laws in
force. If the Government requires private land for public
usage, the Government is empowered to invoke the provisions of
the Acquisition Laws and take over the land for the purpose of
public usage.

¶27

4. Therefore, such a blanket relief in the nature of an
injunction, cannot be granted in a writ proceedings. The Counter
filed by the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare states as
follows:

¶28

“4. I Submit that in obedience to the
direction of National Commission for Scheduled
Castes, the Distict Collector, Villupuram
District First Respondent herein direct me to
submit a report in the New Indian Express News it
was stated that the pathway to the Graveyard was
not provided to the pathoor kal Colony people in
Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District and also
the public made several representation for the
same pursuant to that I visited the village on
22.01.2016 inspected the spot along with Pathoor
Village Administrative Office and prominent
members of Adi Dravidar Community spot enquiry
revealed that in Pathoor Village, Kal Colony Adi
Dravidar people using grave yard situated in

¶29

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

¶30

R.S.No.174/3B to the extent of 0.13.0 Ares. To
reach the graveyard. They are using that wet
lands situated in R.S.No.171/3, 171/4, 172/20,
172/21, 173/8D, 174/11. At the time of
Inspection crops were raised the land owners are
residing outside the village. The Village
Administrative Officer was asked to contact the
landowners and taken steps to acquire the land by
negotiation failing which acquisition proceedings
may be investigated. I submit the Report to the
First Respondent. The Land owners were requested
to attend the Adi Dravidar Welfare, Special
Tahsildar's Office at Ulundurpet on 28.01.2016 at
11.00 AM. And summons were issued. But all the
landowners refused to receive the summons and did
not appear on 28.01.2016. Steps were taken to
measure the land for acquisition.

¶31

5. I submit that in the mean time, the
Respondents/Petitioners filed petitions before
Hon'ble Court praying for interim injunction and
a direction not to coerce the petition to
handover their properties for the pathway in the
villageinW.P.No.12391of2016and
W.M.P.No.10727 of 2016. After hearing bothsides,
this Hon'ble Court on 01.04.2016 passed and order
of 'Status Quo ' till 11.04.2016. Again on
11.04.2016, this Hon'ble Court extended the
intern order already granted until further
orders.

¶32

6. I Submit that the duty of the
Government to provide pathway to the graveyard to
the people of pathoor village Kal Colony Adi
Dravidar people. If the pathway is not provided
to them unnecessary communal clash will araise.
Because of the order of 'Status Quo' The
Government is not in a position to start
acquisition proceedings to acquire the land for
pathway. If the order of 'Status Quo' is not
vacated irreparable damage will be caused to the
Government.

¶33

5. In view of the facts stated in the counter affidavit
as above, the relief as such sought for in the present writ
petition cannot be granted. Further, the actions are yet to be
initiated by the authorities competent.

¶34

6. This being the factum, the petitioners have not
established any right for the purpose of grant of any relief in
the nature of an injunction. Accordingly, the writ petition

¶35

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

¶36

stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

nti/ars

¶41

To

¶42

1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2. The Special Thasildhar, Adidravaidar Welfare, Ulundurpet, Villupuram District. 3. The Sub-Inspector of police, Tirunavalur Police Station, Tirunavalur, Ulundurpet taluk, Villupuram District. +1cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate, S.R.No.52657 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.53175

¶43

W.P.No.12391 of 2016

¶44

PMK(CO)
RLP(26/10/2021)

¶45

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

C.Venkatraman, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Venkatraman, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Govindhan Vs the District Collector

Gunasekaran Vs The Revisional Authority Under

E.Bhuvana Vs The Chief Manager

S.Kandasamy Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

R.Loganathan Vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu

Mr.S.Raja, Vs The District Collector