Dismissed

Nellai M.K.Venkatachalam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Apr 2022WP(MD)/13370/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the vesting of Karumbuliyuthu tank with the panchayat and consequent lease of fishing rights. The Madras High Court held that under Section 3(b) of the 1948 Act, all private tanks vest with the Government. Lack of material in favor of petitioners led the Court to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to workout their remedy in the manner known to law.

Nellai M.K.Venkatachalam, Vs the District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 05.04.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2009

¶7

1.Nellai M.K.Venkatachalam (died)

¶8

2.M.K.Nellaiappan (died)

¶9

S/o.Late M.K.Kanthimathinatha Pillai

¶10

3.K.Subbammal

¶11

4.K.Sankaravadivoo

¶12

5.M.K.Kanagasabapathi

¶13

6.M.K.Paramasivam

¶14

7.M.K.Nellaiappan,

¶15

S/o.Late M.K.Kanagasabapathi

¶16

8.M.K.Sankaranarayanan

¶17

9.M.K.Kanthi

¶18

10.M.K.Kalyanasundaram

¶19

11.M.K.Thiyagarajan

¶20

12.M.K.Shanmugasundaram

¶21

13.M.K.Valli

¶22

14.M.K.Kanthimathinathan

¶23

15.M.K.Kanagasabapathi

¶24

16.M.K.Lakshmi Kalyani

¶25

17.M.K.Nellai Vadivoo

¶26

18.M.K.Valli

¶27

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

¶28

1/5

¶29

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009

¶30

19.M.K.V.Ulagammal

¶31

20.M.K.V.Lakshmi Kalyani

¶32

21.M.K.V.Gandhimathi

¶33

22.M.K.V.Thaiyalnayagai

¶34

23.M.K.V.Mahalakshmi

¶35

24.M.K.V.Saraswathi

¶36

25.M.K.V.Kanagasabapathi

¶37

26.V.S.Radha

¶38

27.S.Gandhimathi 28.M.N.Shanmugam 29.M.N.Kalyanasundaram 30.M.N.Murugan

¶39

31.M.N.Sivakumar ... Petitioners [Petitioners 19 to 25 were substituted as Legal heirs of deceased petitioner 1 vide Court order dated, 10.04.2013 in M.P(MD) No.2 of 2013 ; Petitioners 26 to 31 were substituted as Legal heirs of the deceased petitioner vide Court order dated 10.04.2013 in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013] Vs 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvlei.

¶40

2.The Tahsildar, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶41

3.The Block Development Officer, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶42

4.The Sivalarkulam Panchayat, represented by its President, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶43

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

¶44

2/5

¶45

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009

¶46

5.The Commissioner, Alangulam Panchayat Union, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

6.The Secretary to Government, Land Administration, St George Fort, Chennai.

¶48

... Respondents

¶49

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in A5/2370/2009, dated 08.07.2009 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property in except by acquiring the tank in accordance with law in Survey No.1352 and 1353 Sivalarkulam Village, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶50

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Nos.1 and R4,R5 Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Nos.2,3 and 6

¶51

ORDER

¶52

This writ petition is filed as against the letter of the third respondent dated 28.07.2009.

¶53

2.Vide impugned letter dated 28.07.2009, the third respondent has furnished certain details to one N.Murugan S/o.Nellaiappan that the Karumbuliyuthu tank, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District is vested with the panchayat and they have been leasing the said tank for fishing rights from the year 1991. Based on this communication obtained by one Murugan, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners herein.

¶54

3.The case of the petitioners is that Karumbuliyuthu tank is a private tank owned by them and it has been in their possession and enjoyment for more than 100 years. While so, without any proceedings and without having any right, the respondents auctioned the fishing rights in Karumbuliyuthu tank.

¶55

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second and third respondents and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the remaining respondents submit that as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act No. XXVI of 1948) all the lands including the private tanks vest with the Government and in the absence of any materials, the petitioners are not having any locus to file this writ petition.

¶56

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

¶57

3/5

¶58

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009

¶59

5.This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials.

¶60

6.As pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader as per Section 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, the entire estate (including all communal lands; porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; pasture lands; lanka lands; forests; mines and minerals; quarries; rivers and streams; tanks and ooranies (including private tanks and ooranies) and irrigation works; fisheries; and ferries), shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances.

¶61

7.It would be relevant to extract Section 14-A of the said Act, as under:

¶62

” 14-A. Ryotwari patta not to be granted in respect of private tank or oorani -

¶63

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no ryotwari patta shall be granted in respect of any private tank or oorani

¶64

(2) Any ryotwari patta granted in respect of any private tank or oorani under this Act before the date of publication of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwai) Amendment Act, 1974, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall stand cancelled, and for purpose of compensation under this Act, the private tank or oorani shall be deemed to be land in respect of which neither the landholder nor any other person is entitled to ryotwari ptta under this Act.”

¶65

8.In view of the above provisions it is clear that all the lands including the private tanks vest with the Government and in the absence any material in favour of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to workout his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.

¶66

// True Copy //

¶67

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶68

dsk

¶69

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

¶70

4/5

¶71

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009

¶72

¶73

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvlei.

¶74

2.The Tahsildar, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶75

3.The Block Development Officer, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶76

4.The Commissioner, Alangulam Panchayat Union, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶77

5.The Secretary to Government, Land Administration, St George Fort,

¶78

Chennai.

¶79

+1 CC to M/s.M.P. SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-16826[F] dated 06/04/2022 )

¶80

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-17029[F] dated 06/04/2022 )

¶81

W.P(MD)No.13370 of 2009 05.04.2022

¶82

RD(28.04.2022) 5P 8C

¶83

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

¶84

5/5

Nellai M.K.Venkatachalam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nellai M.K.Venkatachalam, 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

Eveready Spinning Mills Pvt. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Association of Heads of High Vs the Director of School

Thiru. Arulpaulraj, Vs the District Collector

P.Nachimuthu, Vs the District Collector

P.Palanisamy Gounder (Died) Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Nehru Memorial Service - Vs the Secretary to Government