Disposed

Girija Srikumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC20 Apr 2023WP(MD)/4630/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by an agriculturist seeking a stay on authorities altering the western bund of Alankulam Tank, which serves as her primary access to land. The court observed that the existing pathway must remain unaltered and denied future soil removal to maintain current dimensions.

What did the court decide?

The western bund as an existing mud pathway shall not be altered by reducing or expanding its breadth; no further permission for soil removal shall be granted.

Girija Srikumar Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No.3988 of 2020

Girija Srikumar

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶11

2.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, Kodayar Basin Irrigation System, Nagercoil.

¶12

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Public Works Department, Kodayar Basin Irrigation System, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

1/9

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶16

4.The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Public Works Department, Irrigation (Special) Section, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶17

5.V.Manikandeswarakumaran ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from altering the western bund of Alankulam Tank comprised in RS.No.384/1 of Kuruthancode Village, Kalkualm Taluk, Kanyakumari District and not to disturb the agriculturist using the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For R1 to R4 : Mr.A.Sivanupandian Government Advocate

¶20

For R5 : Mr.S.Karthick Ramkumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The above writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Mandamus

¶23

forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from altering the western bund of Alankulam Tank comprised in RS.No.384/1 of Kuruthancode Village, Kalkualm Taluk, Kanyakumari District and not to disturb the agriculturist using the same.

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶27

2.It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of agricultural land, measuring an extent of 1 acre comprised in R.S.Nos.385/11, 386/20 and 21 of Kurunthancode Village, kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The property abuts the western bund of of Alankulam, which is comprised in R.S.No.384/1 of Kuruthancode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District. This bund measures 36 links in width ie., 24 feet and the same is being used as a pathway and is the only access to their respective agricultural lands and to transport fertilizes and other agricultural equipment to the farm lands.

¶28

3.The petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent was permitted to remove the alluvial soil in order to increase the water storage. However, contrary to the work entrusted to him, the fifth respondent had removed the entire western bund and sold the sand for his unlawful enrichment. This caused a great deal of hardship to the petitioner and the other agriculturists, who were dependent on the bund. Thereafter, request was made to the respondents 1 to 4 to restore the western bund of Alankulam to its earlier position. However, the respondents 1 to

¶29

3/9

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶32

4 turned down the plea stating that there was no fund to restore the bund. Therefore, the petitioner undertook to rebuild the bund at her cost and a plan was also submitted. Thereafter, by an order dated 30.05.2018, the second respondent had allowed the petitioner to restore the bund at her cost and as per her plan. When the restoration process was on, the fifth respondent influenced the third respondent to issue a letter dated 21.05.2019 stating that his permission has not been obtained. In fact, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to restore the bund without affecting the water storage. Though originally the breadth of the bund was 36 links, the petitioner has put up the bund only with a width of 8 feet, which is equivalent to 12 links thereby leaving more space for water storage. The bund has now been restored with a lesser width. Now the respondents 1 to 4 had orally informed the petitioner that they were going to alter the western bund. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

4.Counter was called for by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2020. Today,

¶34

a status report has been filed, wherein it has been stated as follows:-

¶35

“ ........ Mf;fpukpg;G mfw;WtJ njhlh;ghd eltbf;iffSf;F vjpuhf jpUkjp.fpupIh =Fkhh; f / ng.=Fkhh; gj;k= ,y;yk; murh;Nfhzk; fl;bkhq;NfhL mQ;ry; vd;gth; nrd;id

¶36

4/9

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶39

cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpisapy; W.P.(MD) No.4630/2020 d; gb njhlh;e;j tof;fpw;F 13.03.2020 md;W jPh;ghiz gpwg;gpj;Js;sJ. jPhghizapy; 1 Kjy; 4 tiuapyhd gpujpthjpfs; vjph;thJiu ; jhf;fy; nra;aTk; 5k; gpujpthjp jdpahf tpsf;fTiu nfhLf;fTk; mJtiu thjpf;F vjpuhd eltbf;ifia epWj;jp itf;FkhW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk; ,Jehs; tiu Mf;fpukpg;G njhlh;ghd gbtk; kw;Wk; tiuglk; tl;lhl;rpah; fy;Fsk; mth;fsplkpUe;J ngwg;gltpy;iy vd;w tpguk; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶40

5.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.

¶41

6.Photographs have been produced for a perusal of this Court. The

¶42

photographs indicate the mud pathway situate on the bund and abutting the pathway, the storage tank is seen. Hence, the pathway as in existence shall not be altered either by reducing or expanding its breadth. It will be used only as access to the agricultural lands of the petitioner and other agriculturists, who are at present utilizing the same. Therefore, no further permission for removing the soil shall be granted to the fifth respondent so as to maintain the breadth of the bund as it now existence.

¶43

5/9

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶46

7.In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there

¶47

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

Speaking : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mm

¶49

20.04.2023

¶50

¶51

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶52

2.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, Kodayar Basin Irrigation System, Nagercoil.

¶53

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Public Works Department, Kodayar Basin Irrigation System, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶54

4.The Assistant Engineer,

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

Water Resources Department, Public Works Department, Irrigation (Special) Section, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶58

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶59

7/9

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶62

P.T.ASHA, J.

¶63

¶64

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶65

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

¶66

8/9

¶67

W.P.(MD) No.4630 of 2020

¶68

20.04.2023

¶69

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

¶70

9/9

Girija Srikumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Srikumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Baskarapandian Vs the Deputy Registrar General

Pandi.M Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Pandi.M Vs the Govt. of Tamilnadu

Savarimuthu Vs the Superintending Engineer

K.Dhanasekaran Vs the District Collector

Mageswaran Vs The District Collector