Disposed

M.K.Madhaiyan v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Jul 2021WP/37393/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a public interest litigation regarding encroachments on 'vari poramboke' land. While permitting a lease for an aerodrome on specific land, the Court imposed a condition that the lease must not disturb the land's nature as a rainwater channel.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. State to execute lease with condition that land's nature as a rainwater channel is not disturbed.

M.K.Madhaiyan Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.37393 of 2015

¶8

M.K.Madhaiyan .. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1 The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶11

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Appellate Committee at Divisional Level Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri.

¶12

3 The Tahsildar Denkanikottai Krishnagiri - 635 107.

¶13

4 M/s.Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director Thally Road, Balagondapally Hosur - 635 114. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to conclude the proceedings as initiated by the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.73/2015/B1, dated 18.2.2015 and the petitioner's appeal dated 10.8.2015 pending with the 2nd respondent in respect of removal of the illegal encroachments and unauthorised constructions comprised in Survey No.200 and 189/2, Belakondapalli Village, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District (which is classified as Vari Poramboke) by forming the

¶15

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

¶16

various Redressal Committees and fixing dates of meetings as contemplated in G.O.(Ms) No.540 dated 4.12.2014 within a stipulated time.

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petition has been instituted in pubic interest upon the perceived inaction on the part of the respondent authorities to remove the encroachment from parcels of land bearing Survey Nos.189/2 and 200 at Belakondapalli Village in Denkanikottai Taluk of Krishnagiri District.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite encroachment having been discovered and the relevant land being classified as a vari poramboke, the revenue authorities have not taken appropriate steps to remove the encroachment.

¶22

A status report has been filed by the first respondent Collector of the District. The report reveals that the land at Survey No.189/2 measuring 0.01.5 hectare and the land measuring

¶23

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

¶24

1.37.5 hectare at Survey No.200 were, indeed, classified as vari in the revenue records. However, the report claims that the overflow from Munimaran Kuttai passes through the said vari at Survey No.200 during the rainy season only. The land bearing Survey No.200 lies in the middle of other parcels of land owned or in the possession of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent has constructed a private aerodrome with aircraft parking facilities and areas for service and maintenance of aircraft.

¶25

According to the Collector, the encroachment at land bearing Survey No.189/2 has been removed and such land is lying idle and vacant.

¶26

It is submitted on behalf of the State that since the fourth respondent runs an aircraft maintenance facility and may have accidentally encroached the land bearing Survey No.200, the State has decided to grant a lease in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of such land, in accordance with law.

¶27

The fourth respondent is represented.

¶28

Since the decision of the State may be for the purpose of promoting industry and to ensure that the aerodrome facility set up by the fourth respondent is not disturbed, it will be open to

¶29

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

¶30

the State to execute a lease in respect of the land bearing Survey No.200 in favour of the fourth respondent. However, to the extent that such land is recognised in the revenue records to be a vari and it is also the Collector's case that it is a channel for flowing rain water in the rainy season, the fourth respondent should not disturb the nature or character of such land notwithstanding obtaining the lease from the State.

¶31

The deed of lease that may be executed by the State in favour of the fourth respondent should specifically refer to such condition as imposed by this Court.

¶32

W.P.No.37393 of 2015 is disposed of. There will be no order

¶33

as to costs.

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

sasi

¶38

¶39

1 The District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.

¶40

2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Appellate Committee at Divisional Level Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri.

¶41

3 The Tahsildar

¶42

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

¶43

Denkanikottai Krishnagiri - 635 107.

¶44

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.33961

¶45

W.P.No.37393 of 2015

¶46

RSV(CO) SU(20/07/2021)

¶47

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

M.K.Madhaiyan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Madhaiyan 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

Chennai Pooganagar Perunthalaivar Vs The Commissioner

N.Natarajan Vs Harmander Singh

M.Balaji Vs The Principal Home Secretary

M/S.Lotus Gardens Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorized Officer

G.R.Pushpageetha Vs The Assistant General Manager

S.Chandrasekaran Vs The District Collector