Disposed

Adhikesavareddy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Feb 2023WP/2724/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a stay on converting Thoppu Poramboke land for free house site pattas for Scheduled Caste people. The Court, without expressing opinion on merits, directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's objections and afford a hearing before passing orders on merits, relying on a Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider petitioner's objection dated 24.11.2022, afford opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders on merits.

Adhikesavareddy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

Writ Petition No.2724 of 2023

¶7

and WMP No. 2828 of 2023

¶8

Adhikesavareddy .. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Secretariat, Chennai-600009.

¶11

The District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruvallur

¶13

Tiruvallur District

¶14

The Tahsildhar Oothukottai Taluk

¶15

Tiruvallur District .. Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from converting the Thoppu Poramboke lands in S.No.146/3, to an extent of 2.23.5 hectares, Latchivakkam Village, Oothukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District for providing house site Patta https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/7

¶18

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

¶19

or for any other purpose and consequently direct the respondents to consider our objection dated 24.11.2022 to maintain the said land as Thoppu Poramboke Land for the usage of villagers.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Jothimanian for Mr. K. Balu For Respondents : Mr. Bala Dhandayudhan Special Government Pleader for RR1 to 4

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

Heard Mr. M.R. Jyothimanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bala Dhandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 4.

¶24

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to issue a

¶25

Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from converting the Thoppu Poramboke lands in S.No.146/3, to an extent of 2.23.5 hectares, in Latchivakkam Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District for providing house site Patta or for any other purpose and consequently direct the respondents to consider the objection of the Petitioner dated 24.11.2022 and to maintain the said land as Thoppu Poramboke Land for the usage of villagers.

¶26

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

¶27

2/7

¶28

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

¶29

According to the Petitioner, he is a resident of Perambur Village, Latchivakkam Panchayat, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District where more than 300 families are residing. The land in S.No.146/3,to an extent of 2.23.5 hectares, Latchivakkam Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District has been classified as Thoppu Poramboke and the same is used by the villagers for public purpose and more particularly for cattle rearing. It is stated by the petitioner that people belonging to Scheduled Caste community have given a representation to provide free house site patta for their dwelling and for this purpose, the respondents have zeroed in on the land in Survey No. 146/3 notwithstanding the fact that the same is used by the Villagers of Latchivakkam Panchayat for cattle rearing and various other use. In this context, commotion prevailed in the locality and therefore, the fourth respondent issued summons dated 15.11.2022 to attend a peace committee meeting on 16.12.2022, among the petitioner and others (B Party) and the representatives of Scheduled Caste people (A Party). The petitioner and others has no intention to oppose the proposal mooted by the respondents to accommodate the scheduled caste people, but only requested to spare the land in Survey No. 146/3 in Lathivakkam Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner and others did not attend the peace committee meeting. However, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have decided to issue free house site patta

¶30

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

¶31

3/7

¶32

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

¶33

to the Scheduled Caste People in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.146/3. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation dated 24.11.2022 objecting to utilise the land in Survey No.146/3 for the purpose of issuing free house site patta to the Scheduled Caste people. As the objection raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 24.11.2022 has not been considered, the petitioner is before this court with the present writ petition.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

¶35

Raja Vs. The Secretary and others passed in W.P.No.19286 of 2021 on 02.02.2022 and submitted that the lands meant for grazing of cattle have to be permitted to be used only for such purpose and it should not be utilised for any other purpose such as providing house site etc., However, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the Respondents are directed to consider the objections raised by the Petitioner on 24.11.2022 before issuing free house site pattas to the Scheduled Caste people in respect of the land situated at S.No.146/3 (Thoppu Poramboke) of the Latchivakkam

¶36

Village, Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District, in the light of the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 02.02.2022 mentioned above.

¶37

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

4/7

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶42

respondents has no serious objection for issuing such a direction, as prayed for by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

Considering the limited scope of the prayer now sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner's objection dated 24.11.2022, before taking a final decision in relation to allotment of house site to Scheduled Caste people in the land in Survey No.146/3 in Latchivakkam Village, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others concerned and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 02.02.2022 made in W.P.No.19286 of 2021 (Raja Vs. The Secretary and others).

¶44

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶45

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶46

[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]

¶47

03.02.2023

¶48

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No arr/rsh

¶49

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

5/7

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat,

¶54

Chennai-600009.

¶55

The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

¶57

The Tahsildhar, Oothukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶58

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

¶59

6/7

¶60

W.P.No.2724 of 2023

¶61

R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

arr/rsh

WP No. 2724 of 2023

03.02.2023

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

¶66

7/7

Adhikesavareddy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adhikesavareddy v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs D.Rajan

P. Balasubramaniyan Vs The District Collector

M.Jayaraman, Vs The District Collector

A.Kasiammal Vs The District Collector

G.Kuselan Vs The District Collector

yovan selvin, Vs The Executive Engineer (Planning)