Dismissed

Kalaiselvan@Selvam v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC8 Nov 2021WP/23754/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a hearing before boundaries of Maravantham revenue village could be extended. The court held the petition premature and dismissed it based on the Government's submission that no immediate proposal exists for creating a new village or extending boundaries.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as premature and without basis; petitioner may file fresh petition if proposals materialize without adequate hearing.

Kalaiselvan@Selvam Vs the Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.11.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

WP No.23754 OF 2021

Kalaiselvan @ Selvam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶12

The District Collector, Kallakurichi.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi.

¶14

The Thasildhar, Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi District.

¶15

The Revenue Inspector, Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi District. .... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a public hearing enable to layout the grievance of the public in the event of extending the boundaries over Maravanatham Revenue Village to create new Revenue Village namely Nagakuppam Revenue Village by considering the representation of the Village Public of Maravanatham Village dated 27.09.2021 within the time frame fixed by this court.

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶18

For the Respondents : Ms.R.Anita Government Counsel

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶22

The petitioner apprehends that the revenue authorities seek to extend the boundaries of Maravantham revenue village to create a new revenue village by the proposed name of Nagakuppam revenue village. The petitioner says that a larger public hearing has to be conducted to ascertain the wishes of the local people.

¶23

It is submitted by Ms.Anitha, learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, that oral instructions have been issued by the fourth and fifth respondents to the effect that there is no immediate proposal for extending the boundaries of Maravantham revenue village or for creating any larger or new revenue village at the relevant place.

¶24

In view of such submission, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner does not appear to be real; at least at the moment.

¶25

Accordingly, WP No.23754 of 2021 is dismissed as premature and without basis. Nothing in this order will prevent the petitioner from instituting a fresh petition if and when the boundaries of Maravantham village are proposed to be extended and no adequate public hearing in such regard is proposed to be conducted.

¶26

There will be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

sra

¶32

To:

¶33

1.The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶34

The District Collector, Kallakurichi.

¶35

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

¶36

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi.

¶37

The Thasildhar, Chinnasalem, Kallakrichi District.

¶38

The Revenue Inspector, Chinnasalem, Kallakurichi District.

¶39

WP No.23754 of 2021

¶40

RLD(CO) SB(12/11/2021)

¶41

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

Kalaiselvan@Selvam v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaiselvan@Selvam v. the Secretary to Government

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

Rama Chandiramani Vs Sivagami

The Management Vs T.Kethu

S.Muthusamy Vs the Joint Commissioner of

M.S.Mani Vs Principal Secretary to Government

R.sivamurugan Athithan Vs Union home Secretary

Ayyaa Vs Government of Tamil Nadu Through