Dismissed

R. Ramasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Oct 2021WP/9440/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged via Writ of Mandamus the construction of a government pumping station in public paddy land, claiming affectment of his private bordering property. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the construction was completed and public money must not be spent for private individual protection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

R. Ramasamy Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.9440 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

R.Ramasamy ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division Office, Tiruppur.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶11

4.The Block Development Officer, Uthukuli Union, Tiruppur District.

¶12

5.The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus
forbearing the respondents from putting up the pumping station /
sump in Odai Poramboke in S.F.No.39/1 of Sengampalli Village,
Tiruppur Taluk in view of the petitioner's objections dated
03.03.2014 to the 1st respondent.

¶15

`For Petitioner`	`: Mr.C.Ramaraj` `for M/s.M.Guruprasad`
`For` `Respondents 1 to`	`3` `: Mr.C.Kathiravan` `Government Advocate`
`For` `Respondent 4`	`: Mr.P.Chinnadurai`
`For Respondent 5`	`: Mr.S.Eraskine`

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to
forbear the respondents from putting up the pumping station /
sump in Odai Poramboke in S.F.No.39/1 of Sengampalli Village,
Tiruppur Taluk in view of the petitioner's objections dated
03.03.2014 to the 1st respondent.

¶19

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that due to
the construction of pumping station / sump in Odai poramboke,
his patta land will be affected. However, it is not the case of
the writ petitioner that the construction is made in his
property. Admittedly, the construction of pumping station / sump
is made in the Odai Poramboke which belongs to the Government.

¶20

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner fairly made a submission that the construction had
already been completed, however, the authorities have promised
that a compound wall in the property belonging to the
petitioner, will be constructed by the department.

¶21

4. Perusal of the letter dated 26.03.2014 sent by the
Executive Engineer shows that a wall will be constructed for
safety purposes. However, the place and the description of the
properties are not mentioned in the letter. The wall is to be
constructed in the Government property or the property belongs
to the petitioner has not been clearly stated. In this regard,
this Court is to consider the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd
respondent and more specifically para 7 and 8 reads as under:

¶22

“7. In the south-eastern side, just outside the
compound of the water pumping station, a pipe has been laid
by the Highways Department to facilitate the rain water to
reach the drainage. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that construction of pumping station in the
S.F.No.39/1, Chengapalli village, Uthukuli Taluk would affect
the nearby land is absolutely not true and the same is
concocted for the purpose of this case.

¶23

8. As regards Para 6,7 and 8 of the affidavit, it is
humbly submitted that no adjacent property will get affected
because of the construction of water pumping station in the
aforementioned land. Because, it is only a pumping station
being constructed in the Poramboke land. Therefore, the water
stagnation will never take place. Beyond that, pipe has also
been fitted to make the rain water to reach the drainage.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is totally
false.”

¶24

5. In view of the fact that even after construction,
there is no likelihood of danger or damage in respect of the
property belonging to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner
to safeguard his property and no private compound wall can be

¶25

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

¶26

constructed by the Government Department for the benefit of the
individual, more specifically at the cost of the taxpayers
money. If at all such a wall is required to protect the pumping
station, then it is to be constructed and not otherwise. At the
outset, public money is to be spent only for the welfare of the
public and not to protect the private interest. This is the
principle to be followed. The letter dated 26.03.2014 is of no
avail to the writ petitioner and it is for the petitioner to
take all necessary steps to protect his property, in the manner
known to law.

¶27

6. In view of the fact that the construction of pumping
station has already been completed and all adequate measures
were also taken by the authorities competent, no further
adjudication is required in respect of the grounds raised in the
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-IX)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

ars/mka

¶33

To

¶34

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶35

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Division Office, Tiruppur.

¶36

3.The Tahsildar, Uthukuli Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶37

4.The Block Development Officer, Uthukuli Union, Tiruppur District.

¶38

5.The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶39

+1CC to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate, SR.No. 53970 +1CC to M/s.P.Chinnadurai, Advocate, SR.No. 53947 +1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 54262

¶40

W.P.No.9440 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶41

CP(CO)

¶42

B.VC (29/10/2021)

¶43

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

R. Ramasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Ramasamy 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

Mr. D.Arul, Vs the Secretary

M.Vidhya, Vs the District Revenue Officer

V.L.Periasamy Dealers Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sri Sakthi & Co., Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S. S B M Concrete Blocks, Vs Union of India

M/S. Suriya Brick Block, Vs Union of India