Dismissed

Vivekanandan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC11 Nov 2021WP(MD)/20283/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to restrain forest authorities from preventing cultivation on land claimed as forest. Court dismissed petition on procedural grounds as the challenging notification dated 1983 was not directly contested.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and Miscellaneous Petition dismissed preserving rights to challenge the Gazette notification dated 08.02.1983.

Vivekanandan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16949 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2021

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD) No.16949 of 2021

Vivekanandan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment & Forest Department, St.George Fort,

¶8

Chennai - 9.

¶9

2.The District Collector, Theni, Theni District.

¶10

3.The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Theni, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, specifically the third respondent and his subordinates from preventing the petitioner to have access or cultivation in his land in S.F.No.412 situated at Koolaiyanur Village, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District by claiming his land as forest land by considering his representation dated 17.09.2021.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Captioned main writ petition pertains to land ad-measuring 7 acres and 86 cents or thereabouts situate in S.F.No.412 (Survey Number) at Koolaiyanur Village, Bodinaickanur Taluk, Theni District [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶15

2.Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the said land was purchased by the writ petitioner in and by a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2013 which has been registered as document No.1534/2013 on the file of the jurisdictional registering authority i.e., Sub-Registrar, Chinnamanur.

¶16

3.A perusal of the photo copy of the registered sale deed placed before this Court brings to light that the writ petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16949 of 2021

¶19

the vendee and the vendor is one Mr.I.Mohasin, but he is represented by his power of attorney agent Mr.S.Saravanan, who appears to be writ petitioner vendee's sibling. Owing to the scope and ambit of the captioned writ petition, I refrain myself from delving any further into this facet of the matter.

¶20

4.To be noted, scope of the captioned writ petition is qua a prayer to mandamus ( a negative mandamus) the respondents restraining them from causing interference qua writ petitioner's access to said land on the ground that it is reserve forest land. Furthering his submissions in this direction, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the interference is on the basis of a gazette publication dated 08.02.1983 (Madurai District Gazette Publication) issued by the District Collector of Madurai. This District Gazette Publication as placed before this Court reads as follows :

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16949 of 2021

¶24

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

¶25

3/6

¶26

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16949 of 2021

¶27

5.Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the above is only a proposal, the writ petitioner sought certain details under the 'Right to Information Act, 2005' ['RTI Act' for the sake of brevity] and the response to the same as placed before this Court reads as follows :

¶28

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

¶29

4/6

¶30

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16949 of 2021

¶31

6.Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) accepts notice on behalf of all the three respondents.

¶32

7.Owing to the narrow compass and acute legal angle on which the captioned matter turns, main writ petition is taken up with the consent of both sides.

¶33

8.A perusal of the aforementioned District Gazette notification and the RTI response make it clear that the crux and gravamen of the lis is the aforementioned District Gazette Notification dated 08.02.1983 as the bone of contention turns on that. In this regard, for completion of facts, it is necessary to record that learned Counsel for writ petitioner submitted that such a notification can be issued only by 'Government' under Section 4 of the 'Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882' [hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and 'Government' has been defined under Section 2 being interpretation clause of said Act.

¶34

9.Learned State Counsel submits that the above submissions are completely outside the scope of the captioned main writ petition and the writ petitioner cannot be heard to raise these contentions as the notification has not been put to challenge.

¶35

10.This Court has no difficulty in accepting aforementioned simple argument of the learned State Counsel.

¶36

11.The writ petitioner if aggrieved (if at all and if that be so) should only assail the aforementioned District Gazette publication dated 08.02.1983 and any consequent communication either directly or via RTI Act. The writ petitioner not having done that cannot succeed in the captioned writ petition. Therefore, the captioned writ petition is dismissed and consequently, captioned WMP is also dismissed, albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to challenge the aforementioned notification dated 08.02.1983 and any other consequential communication/s if so advised and if so desired. Though obvious, it is made clear that if the writ petitioner chooses to take this legal route, the challenge will be examined by a legal drill uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

5/6

¶40

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.16949 of 2021

¶41

¶42

W.P(MD).No.20283 of 2021 11.11.2021

¶43

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Environment & Forest Department, St.George Fort, Chennai - 9. 2.The District Collector, Theni, Theni District. 3.The District Forest Officer, District Forest Office, Theni, Theni District +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-34255[F] dated 12/11/2021 )

¶44

RD(29.11.2021) 6P 5C

¶45

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

¶46

6/6

Vivekanandan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivekanandan v. the Government of Tamilnadu

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

M/S. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Vs the Assistant Commissioenr

V.Mayandi Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Sree Karumariamman Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sarojini. R Vs the Commissioner

Parvathipuram Udamuttu Dharmam Vs the Commissioner

Pandi Muniyandi, Vs the Joint Commissioner