Partly allowed

S.M.Anthony Muthu v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Oct 2022WP(MD)/10009/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the prayer for immediate removal of encroachments but directed respondents 4 and 5 to consider the petitioner's representation, conduct a survey after issuing notice, hold a hearing, and take necessary action within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 4 and 5 to consider the representation dated 28.03.2019, conduct a survey after notice, and remove encroachments within eight weeks.

S.M.Anthony Muthu Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶7

W.P(MD)No.10009 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD) No.7803 of 2019

S.M.Anthony Muthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Kodayar Basin Irrigation System, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Nagercoil.

¶13

The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation (Special) Section, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Thuckalay & Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Thuckalay & Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶18

The Assistant Director of Town Panchyats, Collectorate Campus, Nagercoil.

¶19

The Executive Officer, Manavalakurichy Town Panchayat, Manavalakurichy & Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶20

The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District , Nagercoil.

¶21

Vijayan,

¶22

Sekar,

¶23

Vijayakumar,

¶24

Ganesan ... Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondent 1 to 6 to remove the encroachments in Periyakulam comprised in R.S.No. 546 to an extent of 160 acres and the encroachments in Punnamparambu Thengumoodu channel comprised in R.S.Nos. 610/18, 611/1, 620/5, 621/1, 622/2, 669/1, 670/15, 683/20, 684/9, 688/16, 687/12 etc., of Manavalakurichi Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and further direct the 7^th respondent to provide sufficient police protection during the process of removal of encroachments in Periyakulam and Punnamparambu-Thengumoodu channel.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5

¶27

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶29

Mr.K.Mu.Muthu for R6 Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R7 Mr.H.Lakshmi Sankar for R11 No appearance for R8 to R10

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J. )

¶32

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondent 1 to 6 to remove the encroachments in the waterbodies and watercourse in R.S.No. 546 and R.S.Nos. 610/18, 611/1, 620/5, 621/1, 622/2, 669/1, 670/15, 683/20, 684/9, 688/16, 687/12 etc., at Manavalakurichi Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District and further direct the seventh respondent to provide sufficient police protection for removal of the aforesaid encroachments.

¶33

Heard C.T.Perumal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for

¶34

the respondents 1 to 5; Mr.Mu.Muthu, learned counsel for the sixth respondent; Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the seventh respondent and Mr.H.Lakshmi Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the eleventh respondent.

¶35

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶37

Pointing out that the private respondents have encroached the waterbodies and watercourse in the aforesaid survey numbers, thereby obstructing the free flow of water, the petitioner submitted a representation to the official respondents on 28.03.2019 and pursuant thereto, the fifth respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2386/2019/g6, dated 04.04.2019, forwarded the same to the sixth respondent for necessary action and the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, remains as such.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the petitioner has sought for a larger relief, he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents 4 and 5 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.03.2019, in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶39

Considering the limited scope of the prayer now sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the

¶40

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶42

respondents 4 and 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.03.2019 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. If there is any encroachment as claimed by the petitioner, after issuing notice and conducting survey in the presence of the petitioner and all other parties concerned, respondents 4 and 5 are directed to take necessary action for removal of encroachments in the aforesaid waterbodies and watercourse, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties concerned and by following due process of law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 12.10.2022

¶44

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No pkn

¶45

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶47

¶48

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶49

The Executive Engineer, Kodayar Basin Irrigation System, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Nagercoil.

¶50

The Assistant Engineer, Irrigation (Special) Section, Water Resources Organisation, Public Works Department, Thuckalay & Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶51

The Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, Thuckalay & Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶52

The Assistant Director of Town Panchyats, Collectorate Campus, Nagercoil.

¶53

The Executive Officer, Manavalakurichy Town Panchayat, Manavalakurichy & Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶54

The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District , Nagercoil.

¶55

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶57

and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶58

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶59

pkn

¶60

W.P(MD)No.10009 of 2019

¶61

12.10.2022

¶62

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.M.Anthony Muthu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M.Anthony Muthu 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

M.Thirumalai, S/O.Muthu Vs the District Collector

The Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Sivagangai District Central

Dr.R.Thiruvenkadaswamy Vs the Commissioner

Ramachandran.G.S Vs The Director

Murugan, S/O.Sukkiran, Vs the District Collector

Sadai Fakkir Lalamiyan Vs the District Collector