Disposed

S. Mampatti Panchayat v. the Secretary

Madras HC18 Nov 2021WP(MD)/20632/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court entertained a writ petition filed with significant delay regarding professional tax liability. The court directed the District Collector (third respondent) to dispose of the petitioner's representation within three months, ensuring the D.Mampatti Panchayat is notified and given a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to dispose of the representation within three months, after notifying the D.Mampatti Panchayat and allowing them a chance to be heard.

S. Mampatti Panchayat Vs the Secretary — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶7

S.Mampatti Panchayat Represented by its President, Thamaraiselvam.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, St. George Fort, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj, Directorate of Rural Development, Panagal Maligai, Chennai – 600 015.

¶12

3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶13

4.The Block Development Officer, Singampunari, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass on order to collect professional tax from the staffs and teachers of the Eriyur Government Higher Secondary School, by the petitioner's panchayat based on petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2021.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.N.Muthuviyajan, Special Government Pleader for R4

¶15

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

¶16

1/12

¶17

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel for writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that Singampunari Panchayat Union

¶21

comprises of more than 30 Villages including D.Mampatti Panchayat but some time in 1978 (10.01.1978 to be precise) the second respondent made an order according to which 'lands comprised in survey numbers viz., S.Nos.72 to 96 and 109 to 141 (hereinafter 'said lands' for convenience) were transferred to S.Mampatti Panchayat (writ petitioner panchayat) for administrative reasons. Challenge to such transfer and the revenue derived or deprived owing to such transfer did not succeed in the Court of law. To be noted, W.P.No.6903 of 1980 in this regard was dismissed by a Hon'ble Single Judge and the dismissal was confirmed by a Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 14.06.1981 made in W.A.No.123 of 1981. The most relevant paragraph in order of Hon'ble Division Bench is paragraph 4 and the same reads as follows:

¶22

' 4. As to in what manner the areas of adjoining panchayat or townships should be reconstituted is purely on administrative decision and therefore, many of the factual aspect relied upon by the appellant relating to the contents involved, the population in the respective areas, and the revenue derived from the related areas cannot be taken in to account in a proceedings of this nature.'

¶23

(Underlining made by this Court for ease reference)

¶24

Prayer in the captioned writ petition now is to direct the respondents to pass orders to collect professional tax from staff and teachers of Eriyur Government Higher Secondary School by the petitioner panchayat on the ground that this school is situate in said lands.

¶25

Learned counsel submits that a detailed representation has been sent on 09.10.2021 and the same as placed before this Court (along with postal consignment track reports) is as follows:

¶26

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

¶27

2/12

¶28

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶29

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

¶30

3/12

¶31

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶32

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

¶33

4/12

¶34

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶35

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

¶36

5/12

¶37

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶38

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

¶39

6/12

¶40

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶41

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

¶42

7/12

¶43

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶44

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

¶45

8/12

¶46

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶47

Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, expansive prayer, hearing in the admission board, learned counsel submitted that he would abridge the prayer and it would suffice if there is a mandamus qua third respondent to dispose of the aforementioned representation.

¶48

Disposal of aforementioned representation by third respondent would necessarily mean that the other panchayat viz., D.Mamapatti Panchayat should also be given an opportunity to set out their stated position. In this view of the matter, as the captioned main writ petition is being disposed of in the admission board, adequate safeguard will be made in this regard and the same will be set out elsewhere infra in this order.

¶49

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

¶50

9/12

¶51

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶52

Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.N.Muthuviyajan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of fourth respondent, both learned State Counsel submit that the petitioner will also have to explain delay and laches in approaching this Court as the petitioner says that repeated representations were made but the same have not been placed before this Court. It was also pointed out that the representation can be considered only on its own merits and in accordance with law. There is no difficulty in accepting this submissions of learned State Counsel.

¶53

Before making the operative portion of this order, this Court deems it appropriate to make it clear that under the normal circumstances, a writ petition filed after passage of such length of time would not have been entertained by this Court but case on hand is being entertained as a one off measure owing to three reasons. One reason is the question of explaining the delay is left open while disposing the representation and the second reason is the matter pertains to a local body and revenue for the local body which is of immense significance in the three-tier panchayatiraj in a democratic republic. Third reason is order of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court touches upon the revenue aspect qua transfer of lands and this Court is informed that the school concerned situate in said lands (as already captured in the narrative supra).

¶54

In the light of the narrative thus far, the following order is passed:

¶55

a) third respondent shall dispose of the aforementioned representation of writ petitioner dated 09.10.2021 on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any views that have been expressed by this Court in this order;

¶56

b) third respondent shall issue notice to D.Mampatti Panchayat, give ample / adequate opportunity to D.Mampatti Panchayat to put forth their stated position take into account/consider the same and thereafter dispose of the representation. To be noted, this is the safeguard while that has been put in place and the same has been alluded to supra elsewhere in this order;

¶57

c) the above exercise shall be completed by the third respondent as expeditiously as the official business of the third respondent would permit and in any event within three months from today i.e., on or before (*)18.02.2022 ;

¶58

d) disposal of the aforementioned representation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by third respondent i.e., proceedings disposing of

¶59

10/12

¶60

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶61

representation shall be communicated to the writ petitioner panchayat as well as D.Mampatti Panchayat under due acknowledgments within seven working days from the date of disposal.

¶62

10.The captioned main writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directives. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Assistant Registrar (CS-I) (*)Amended as per order of this

¶64

Hon'ble Court dated 14.12.2021 made in WP(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶65

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶66

// True Copy //

¶67

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶68

vsm

¶69

Note :

¶70

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.

¶71

TO:-

¶72

(*)To be Substituted the order already despatched on 02.12.2021

¶73

1.The Secretary,

¶74

Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,

¶75

St. George Fort,

¶76

Chennai – 600 009.

¶77

2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayatraj, Directorate of Rural Development,

¶78

Panagal Maligai,

¶79

Chennai – 600 015.

¶80

3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶81

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

¶82

11/12

¶83

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021

¶84

4.The Block Development Officer, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

¶85

+1 CC to M/s.M. SUBASH BABU, Advocate (SR-39181[F] dated 16/12/2021) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP (SR-35191 & 35325[F]

¶86

W.P(MD)No.20632 of 2021 18.11.2021

¶87

PS (CO)

¶88

GC(30.11.2021) 12P 7C GC(23.12.2021) 12P 7C

¶89

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

¶90

12/12

S. Mampatti Panchayat v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Mampatti Panchayat v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maruthiah Pandian.M Vs the Commissioner

P.Mohammed Gani Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Eswaramoorthy.R Vs the Regional Transport Officer

O.P.a.Basheer Ahmed, Vs the Principal Chief

P.Ramamoorthy Vs the Stae of Tamilnadu

M.Anwar Vs the District Collector