Disposed

A.Chellamuthu v. District Collector

Madras HC13 Jul 2023WP/43515/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order not to construct a school in Survey No.125/3. The court held the petitioner was not an affected party and observed construction needs no merit consideration. It noted encroachment removal is the authority's duty. The petition was disposed without considering expense.

What did the court decide?

No separate relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of without order as to costs.

A.Chellamuthu Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

A.Chellamuthu

.. Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Collectorate, Salem.

¶13

2.The Revenue Divisional officer, Sankagiri, Salem District.

¶14

3.The Tahsildar, Edappadi, Salem District.

¶15

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Salem.

¶16

5.Konganapuram Panchayat Union, Block Development Officer, Konganapuram, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

¶20

6.Konasamuthiram Village Panchayat, rep. by its Executive Officer/President, Konasamuthiram, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.

¶21

7.The Headmaster, Government High School, Kanniyampatti, Konasamuthiram, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.

¶22

.. Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in N.K.5007/2013/A6 dated 14.09.2016 on the file of third respondent and quash the same, consequentially directing the respondents 1, 4 and 5 to complete the process of taking over and handing over the possession of the land to an extent of 3.50 Acre, out of 4.73 Acre comprised in Survey No.125/3 in Kanniyampatti Village belonging to the sixth respondent Village Panchayat for establishment of High School at Kanniyampatti by upgrading the existing middle school, by directing the respondents to remove the encroachers on the said land.

¶24

For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajavel

¶25

For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha Spl. Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and 7

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶31

We have heard Mr.P.Rajavel, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and 7.

¶32

The petitioner assails the order dated 14.9.2016. Under the said order, it was observed that on the northern side of the land comprised in S.No.125/3, which is classified as Thoppu, Sarabanga river is situated in Survey No.122; on the southern side Senkuttai Tank is situated in Survey No.107; and in the land comprised in Survey No.107, about 60 palm trees are standing and the said land is five feet lower than the road level and there is a stream running on the eastern side of the said land. One Sengodan, son of Marimuthu, and 17 others have encroached the said land. Further, the land is situated one kilometre away from the existing school. It

¶33

was decided that the land in Survey No.125/3 is not suitable for construction of school building.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

¶37

In fact, the petitioner should not be an aggrieved or

¶38

affected party by a decision not to construct the school in Survey No.125/3.

¶39

It is submitted by Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government that the school is already constructed in Survey No.154/2.

¶40

As far as the construction of a school at a particular site is concerned, the same needs no consideration on merits, nor the petitioner can be said to be an aggrieved or affected party.

¶41

Another contention is qua removal of encroachment from Survey No.125/3. Learned State Government Pleader submits that if there is any encroachment, then the respondent authority would take steps in accordance with law for removal of the encroachment.

¶42

In view of the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Page 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

¶46

There will be no order as to costs.

¶47

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 13.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶48

To:

¶49

1.The District Collector, Salem District, Collectorate, Salem.

¶50

2.The Revenue Divisional officer, Sankagiri, Salem District.

¶51

3.The Tahsildar, Edappadi, Salem District.

¶52

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Salem.

¶53

5.The Block Development Officer, Konganapuram Panchayat Union, Konganapuram, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.

¶54

6.The Executive Officer/President, Konasamuthiram Village Panchayat, Konasamuthiram, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.

¶55

7.The Headmaster, Government High School, Kanniyampatti, Konasamuthiram, Edappadi Taluk, Salem District.

¶56

Page 5 of 6

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

¶59

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.

(sasi)

W.P.No.43515 of 2016

13.07.2023

___________ Page 6 of 6_

¶64

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

A.Chellamuthu v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chellamuthu v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs the District Revenue Officer

V.B.R. Menon Vs The Secretary

Thangaraj Vs The District Collector

The Executive Officer Vs P.Kaliappan

The Management Vs D.Kalingaraj

The Union of India Vs Sankar Arumugam