Partly allowed

Jeyasundaram v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Apr 2021WP(MD)/1561/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea to cancel survey pattas granted in 1986/89. The Court held that pattas cannot be cancelled at a late stage via PIL. Instead, it directed the District Collector to consider land acquisition proceedings for road widening after serving necessary notices.

What did the court decide?

Pettas cancelled plea dismissed; direction issued to District Collector to consider acquisition of land for road widening within four months after notice.

Jeyasundaram Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1561 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1561 of 2020

Jeyasundaram

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Thasildhar, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. 4.Thadiya Thevar 5.Amalraj ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2019, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and directing the 2^nd respondent to cancel the patta in vide patta No.281 & 319 in survey Nos.67/2A, 67/13, 67/2B, 67/3B2 on the file of the Kalaikulam Revenue Village, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and consequently, directing the 2^nd respondent is restored the original classification of “Geology Cart Track” in Survey No.67/2 on the file of the Kalaikulam Revenue Village, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar

¶14

For Respondent Nos.1 to : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass 3 Special Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.1561 of 2020

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶20

This Writ Petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation, has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 20.12.2019, within a time frame and to direct the 2^nd respondent to cancel patta Nos.281 & 319 in survey Nos.67/2A, 67/13, 67/2B, 67/3B2, on the file of the Kalaikulam Revenue Village, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District and consequently, to direct the 2^nd respondent to restore the original classification of “Geology Cart Track” in Survey No.67/2 on the file of the Kalaikulam Revenue Village, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶22

3.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 on instructions from the third respondent submitted that pattas were granted in the year 1986/89 and the petitioner has approached this Court, at this juncture, by filing this public interest litigation.

¶23

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner in response would submit that admittedly pattas were granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to an extent of about one kilometer on either side of the road, due to which, the road widening work has been stopped for the said length, as a result of which, the public are put to irreparable hardships.

¶24

5.Since the pattas were issued in the year 1986/89, it cannot be cancelled, that too at the instance of a third party in a public interest litigation. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the road could not be widened because of the grant of patta to respondent Nos.4 and 5, then the District Collector or the concerned Department should initiate acquisition proceedings for acquisition of the land from the pattathars to the extent required for widening the road.

¶25

6.In the light of the above, the petitioner's request in respect of cancellation of patta granted in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot be considered. However, there will a direction to the first respondent District Collector to consider as to whether the land has to be acquired for the purpose of widening the road, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.12.2019, after notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from

¶26

2/3

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.1561 of 2020

¶28

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

¶33

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned .

¶34

To:

¶35

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Sivagangai District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Thasildhar, Illayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-17535[F] dated 26/04/2021 ) W.P.(MD) No.1561 of 2020 23.04.2021

¶37

AV (10.05.2021) 3P 5 C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Jeyasundaram v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyasundaram 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

Shanmughanandha Karthees Vs the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry

Vignesh Vs The Superintendent of Police

Maheswari.R Vs the District Collector

Sunil Kumar.a Vs the District Collector

R.Saminathan Vs the District Collector

E.Petchiammal Vs The District Collector