Dismissed

Periyammal v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Mar 2022WP/3090/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a mandate not to permit the laying of a pipeline on government lands. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as her prior claim of title was rejected in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus was dismissed; the competent authority is directed to decide the pipeline application according to law.

Periyammal Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

W.P.NO.3090 OF 2014

Periyammal

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The District Collector, Namakkal District. 2. The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.

¶11

The Executive Officer, Namagiripettai Town Panchayat, Namakkal District.

¶12

Gunasekaran

¶13

Chitra

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Peti	tion filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of In	dia for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
directing the resp	ondents 1 to3 more particularly first
respondent to consi	der the petitioner's representation dated
12.12.2013 and pass	suitable order on the same by directing 4^th
respondent not to is	sue any permission for respondents 5 & 6 for
laying pipe line in	Survey Nos.422/1B (Hectare 0.09.5), 417 and
418 in Ariyagounda Distirct.	mpatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.H.Kavitha for Mr.S.Sounthar

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶19

Mr.M.Digvijaya Pandian for R4

¶20

Ms.Zeenath Begum for R5 & R6

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to grant any permission to the 5^th and 6^th respondents for laying pipe line in S.Nos.422/1B, 417 and 418 in Ariyagoundampatti Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶23

2.The 3^rd respondent viz., the Tahsildar, Rasipuram has filed a counter affidavit. The 3^rd respondent apart from denying the right and title of the petitioner in the subject properties, also has taken the following stand:

¶24

5.Being failed in several attempts, now his mother Tmt.Periyammal filed this present writ. The petitioner has no right to object the laying of pipe line through Government Poramboke and Panchayat road porambokes in Survey Nos.422/1B(AWD), 417, 418/Panchayat road for agricultural purpose by 5^th & 6^th respondents. The writ petitioner has no title or right by adverse possession the Government poramboke land.

¶25

6.The respondents 5 & 6 have submitted petition for laying pipe line through government lands and the same is pending before the RDO, Namakkal and the authorities will take a decision in accordance with relevant rules & Government orders. The petitioner does not have any locus stand to say anything in this issue.

¶26

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

4.In the considered view of this Court, the right claimed by the petitioner has already been rejected by the competent civil

¶28

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

¶29

court and it has been confirmed up to this Court in S.A.No.490 of 2014. In view of the same, the petitioner has no locus to claim any right over the subject properties. In any event, the applications submitted by the 5^th and 6^th respondents is pending before the RDO, Namakkal and the said authority will take a decision in accordance with law and the petitioner will not have any say in the said process.

¶30

5.In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

ssr

¶36

¶37

The District Collector, Namakkal District.

¶38

The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal District.

¶39

The Tahsildar, Rasipuram,

¶40

Namakkal District.

¶41

The Executive Officer, Namagiripettai Town Panchayat,

¶42

Namakkal District.

¶43

+1cc to Mr.S.Sounthar, Advocate, S.R.No.17653

¶44

+1cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, S.R.No.18156

W.P.No.3090 of 2014

SJ(CO)

RLP(13/04/2022)

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

Periyammal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyammal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Murugan (Decased) Vs Madhu (Died)

Mohamed Abubacker Vs Bhughari

M.Velu Vs Lakshmi

N. Kuppyammal (Died Vs P. Nachayee

Subramanian Vs Selvam

P.Madheeswaran Vs Government of Tamil Nadu