Allowed

K.Pasupathy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Sept 2023WP/8096/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court allowed a writ petition challenging the District Collector's permission to plant mango saplings in Meichal Poromboke land. Relying on precedent, the court held that using grazing land for plantations effectively denies its intended use. It set aside the order directing respondents to seek prior High Court approval and for an equivalent grazing site before such use.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order permitting plantation of mango saplings in grazing land was set aside.

K.Pasupathy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :04.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023 WMP.Nos.8352 and 8353 of 2023

K.Pasupathy

... Petitioner

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Chennai – 9.

¶11

2.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

3.The Sub Collector, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

¶13

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur.

¶14

5.The Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶15

6.The Block Development Officer, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶16

7.The Revenue Inspector, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶17

8.The Village Administrative Officer,

¶18

1/10

¶19

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

¶20

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶21

Nattam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶22

9.The President, Nattam Village Panchayat, Gummidipoondi.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.834/2021/A4 dated 10.08.2022 and the consequential order of the 3 rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3506/2022/B1, dated 30.01.2023 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents not to convert the usage of classification of the land comprised in Survey Nos.17, 18/1A, 19, 21, 22, 23/7, 25, 26 and 504 measuring 17 acres belonging to common Meichal lands of Nattam village Panchayat, situated at Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District from Meichal Poromboke to Vegetable/fruit Garden or to allot/assign the lands to any private parties in respect of the said land.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyappa Raja For Respondents : Mr.C.S.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5 and R7 and R8 Mr.S.Yaswanth Additional Government Pleader for R6 M/s.D.Dayanithi for R9

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

2/10

¶28

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

¶29

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶30

The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent/District Collector permitting the 6^th respondent herein to plant mango Saplings in a land classified as Meichal Poromboke (Grazing Lands).

¶31

Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Ayyappa Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.S.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and 6 and 8, Mr.S.Yashwanth, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 6^th respondent and Mr.D.Dayanithi, learned counsel appearing for the 9^th respondent.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the

¶33

impugned order on the ground that at the time of passing orders, the 1^st respondent failed to follow the revenue standing orders and the lands which are classified as grazing lands cannot be re-assigned for any other purpose except for grazing.

¶34

The learned counsel also relied on the following judgments

¶35

for the proposition that the grazing lands cannot be used for any other

¶36

3/10

¶37

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

¶38

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶39

purposes:

¶40

(i) Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari Vs The State of Gujarat and others in C.A.No.5135 of 2021;

¶41

(ii) Raja Vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9, in W.P.No.19286 of 2021.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in the case on hand, the 2^nd respondent has not passed any order for reclassification of the Meichal land. However, the 6^th respondent

¶43

was only permitted to plant mango saplings. When classification is maintained as a Meichal land, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the citations relied on in the impugned order.

¶44

The learned counsel further submitted that totally 70 acres are classified as Meichal poromboke in that village and only 17.70 acres used for raising mango saplings, the remaining land are preserved as Meichal land. The number of cattle available in the village dwindled by passage of time. It is the specific case of the respondents in the counter that the number of cattle in the villages is only about 560 and therefore the rest

¶45

4/10

¶46

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

¶47

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶48

of the land preserved as Meichal poromboke are sufficient to meet the needs

¶49

of the existing number of cattles.

¶50

In Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari Vs The State of

¶51

Gujarat and others in C.A.No.5135 of 2021 , the Hon'ble Apex Court while emphasising the need to preserve the grazing land observed as follows:

¶52

“ It is trite to say that gouchar land can be used only for purposes for which it is permitted to be used. If there is a user contrary to the permissible user, whether by the State or by any third party, the same cannot go on. Rehabilitation of persons is really not required in the present case as only three persons are entitled to an alternative site as per rules. There is of course some dispute whether the encroachers have made permanent structures or kuchha construction for keeping cattle but be that as it may, the user cannot be contrary to what is being permitted for gouchar land, which is a grazing land.

¶53

In view of the aforesaid, a direction is issued to bring the land in conformity with its use by the State Government taking appropriate action within a maximum period of three months from today.”

¶54

5/10

¶55

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

¶56

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶57

In Raja Vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 in W.P.No.19286 of 2021, the First Bench of this Court followed the dictum laid down in the above case law and observed as follows:

¶58

“Taking into consideration the aforesaid direction read with the Rules permitting conversion of Meikaal Poramboke and Mandaiveli lands in the State of Tamil Nadu, we find it to appropriate to direct the respondents not to convert those lands for regularization of encroachment. For other purposes also, conversion of land cannot be permitted unless equivalent area is identified and earmarked for such purpose. Any order to be passed for it shall be only after the prior approval of this Court. It would be by filing a separate application in the disposed of petition, justifying the conversion of lands and the purpose sought to be achieved, so that the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above is taken to its logical conclusion.”

¶59

Therefore, it is very clear, the lands identified and

¶60

6/10

¶61

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

¶62

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶63

earmarked as Meichal Poromboke cannot be used for any other purposes without identifying some other land with equivalent area for use of grazing purposes. Further, this Court categorically held that such conversion after identification of alternative site, is permissible that too only after getting prior approval of this Court.

¶64

Admittedly, in the case on hand, no such permission has been obtained from this Court for using the grazing land for other purposes namely plantation of mango saplings. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶65

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the land is maintained as a grazing Meichal poromboke in the revenue records and only portion of the same is utilized for raising mango saplings. Therefore, the judgment of the First Bench of this Court referred above is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶66

It is settled law, what cannot be done directly cannot be done

¶67

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

¶68

7/10

¶69

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶70

indirectly. It is not open to the respondents to retain the classification of the land as Meichal Poromboke, but, however, use the same for other purposes. If the land is used for raising mango saplings, there will be no possibility for growth of grass in that area due to shadow created by mango trees. In such circumstances, by raising mango saplings effectively the land will be put into some other use. Ultimately grazing lands will become mango Tope. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the land is retained in revenue records as Meichal Poromboke and hence the petitioner cannot say that the same is used for some other purpose, merits no acceptance. Therefore, this Court comes to a conclusion, the directions issued by the First Bench of this Court in Raja Vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9 in W.P.No.19286 of 2021 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶71

The allowing of the writ petition will not prevent the respondents from approaching this Court for seeking necessary permission as directed in case law cited above.

¶72

8/10

¶73

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

¶74

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶75

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶76

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶77

04.09.2023

¶78

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral citation:Yes/No ub To

¶79

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector, Tiruvallur District.

¶80

3.The Sub Collector, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

¶81

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur.

¶82

5.The Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶83

6.The Block Development Officer, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶84

7.The Revenue Inspector, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶85

8.The Village Administrative Officer, Nattam Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶86

9.The President, Nattam Village Panchayat, Gummidipoondi.

¶87

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶88

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

¶89

9/10

¶90

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶91

¶92

Writ Petition No.8096 of 2023

¶93

04.09.2023

¶94

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

¶95

10/10

K.Pasupathy v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pasupathy v. The Government 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Vishnupriya Vs The Member Secretary

P.Pachamuthu, Vs The Commissioner

M/S.Moc Dies and Moulds Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director

Ezhilarasan Vs The Joint Registrar of

M/s.Shintech Enginering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Micro and small Enterprises Facilitation Council

V.S.Kumar Vs the District Collector