Dismissed

S.Abdul suban sahib v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Jun 2023WP/3430/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court examined a writ petition challenging an order permitting the digging of a pond on varri land. Despite petitioner contentions regarding potential inundation of adjacent agricultural lands, the Court observed that the pond digging and handover to the Panchayat had already been completed. Consequently, the petition was closed as nothing survived for reversal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed. No costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

S.Abdul suban sahib Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.06.2023

¶3

W.P.No.3430 of 2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.3430 of 2023 and WMP Nos.3499 and 3500 of 2023

S.Abdul Suban Sahib

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector O/o. the District Collector Kallakurichi.

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer O/o.the Block Development Officer Kallakurichi.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar O/o.the Tahsildar Sankarapuram Taluk Office Sankarapuram.

¶13

4.The President Alathur Village Panchayat Alathur Village and Post Sankarapuram Taluk Kallakurichi. .. Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.10.2022, in Na.Ka.Aa5/5992/2022, of the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from any manner digging any pond in the land classified as varri in S.No.132/2 instead of the lands in S.Nos.142, 156/9, 275, 304, 353/8 and 644 situated at Alathur Village, Sankarapuram Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.3430 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner Mr.R.Gopinath For Respondents Mr.Abishek Moorthy Government Advocate for R2 and R4 Mr.S.Arumugam Government Advocate for R1, R3

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 14.10.2022 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to forbear from digging any pond in the subject property.

¶21

2.When the matter came up for hearing on 20.04.2023, this Court passed the following order:

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents seeks time to file counter. This Court had already directed the first respondent to file a report in this case. Since the decision has been taken by the first respondent, it will be more appropriate if the first respondent files a counter in this case. The main apprehension that has been raised by the petitioner is that if the pond is made operational, his agricultural lands which are adjacent to the same will be completely inundated during monsoon.

¶23

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the petitioner, there are also others who have agricultural lands and who also face the same problem and the pond is constructed even without calling for objections of the persons who are having agricultural lands near the pond. This specific allegation made by the petitioner has to be dealt with by the District Collector. Even though in the impugned order, it has been stated that the agricultural lands will not be affected by laying the pond, it has to be explained

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.3430 of 2023

¶27

in a detailed manner. Ultimately the laying of the pond should not lead to taking away the livelihood of the agriculturists. This has to be kept in mind by the first respondent.

¶28

3.Post the matter on 05.06.2023 under the caption "adjourned cases".

¶29

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate filed

¶30

a status report of the Direct Collector. It is seen that the digging of the pond has already been completed and it has been handed over to the Panchayat.

¶31

4.In the light of the above development, nothing survives in this writ petition since the work that has already been completed cannot be reversed at this point of time.

¶32

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

05.06.2023

¶34

2/2

¶35

KP Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.3430 of 2023

¶39

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶40

¶41

¶42

1.The District Collector O/o. the District Collector Kallakurichi.

¶43

2.The Block Development Officer O/o.the Block Development Officer Kallakurichi.

¶44

3.The Tahsildar O/o.the Tahsildar Sankarapuram Taluk Office Sankarapuram.

¶45

4.The President Alathur Village Panchayat Alathur Village and Post Sankarapuram Taluk Kallakurichi.

W.P.No.3430 of 2023

05.06.2023 2/2

Page 4 of 4

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

S.Abdul suban sahib v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Abdul suban sahib 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

Selvanathan Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

The General Manager Vs T.Mahalingam

Sowrirajan venkata Varadhachari Vs The Commissioner

M.S.Maasen Enterprises Vs The Managing Director

Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-District Collector

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid, Vs The Commissioner