Dismissed

Rayagiri Special Village v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Feb 2024WA(MD)/753/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus to delimit boundaries between two panchayats; writ appeal challenged the Collector's order handing over fishing rights in five tanks to another panchayat. Following a G.O. divesting local bodies and vesting water bodies in the Public Works Department, the court dismissed the writ petition as non-intervenable policy and the appeal as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

District Collector to pass appropriate order distributing deposited water-body revenue per the Irrigation Management Act; otherwise none granted.

Rayagiri Special Village Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006 and

¶7

M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2011 in W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.M.P(MD)No.1648 of 2006 in W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶8

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011:

¶9

Rayagiri Special Village Panchayat, Rep. by its Chairman, A.Jesi Manonmani, Rayagiri 627 764, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

vs.

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶13

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶14

The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶15

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,

¶16

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

¶17

Page No.1 of 8

¶18

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶19

Tirunelveli.

¶20

The President, Ullar Thalavaipuram Village Panchayat, Vasudevanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶21

The Executive Officer, Rayagiri Town Panchayat, Rayagiri, Tirunelveli District.

¶22

The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Vasudevanallur, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 22.07.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.1931 of 2005.

¶25

For Appellant : Mr.T.Sekar For R1 to R4 & R7 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Sachikumar, Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Ms.V.Janavi Devi for Mr.T.S.R.Venkataramana For R6 : No appearance

¶26

W.P(MD)No.1456 of 2006: A.Natchadalingam ... Petitioner

¶27

vs.

¶28

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶29

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

¶30

Page No.2 of 8

¶31

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶32

Chennai-600 009.

¶33

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶34

The Commissioner, Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union, Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

The President, Ullar Thalavaipuram Village Panchayat, Rayagiri Post-627 764, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

The Executive Officer, Rayagiri Special Panchayat, Rajagiri-627 764, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶37

The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralgam, Chennai-600 108.

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to delimit and allocate the jurisdictional limits of Rayagiri Town Panchayat and Ullar Thalavaipuram panchayats by fixing boundaries pursuant to the recommendations dated 18.12.2003 made by the 6^th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.15046/2003/E6.

¶40

For Petitioner : No appearance For R1, R2, R5 & R6 : Mr.D.Suchikumar Additional Government Pleader For R7 & R4 : No appearance

¶41

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

¶42

Page No.3 of 8

¶43

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶44

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶45

G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶46

W.P.No.1456 of 2006 is filed by one A.Natchadalingam for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to delimit and allocate the jurisdictional limits of Rayagiri Town Panchayat and Ullar Thalavaipuram Panchayats by fixing boundaries pursuant to the recommendation dated 18.12.2003 of the 6^th respondent. It was tagged with W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 preferred by Rayagiri Special Village Panchayat represented by its Chairman who lost Writ Petition No.1931 of 2005 before the learned Single Judge filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the 4^th respondent therein / District Collector, Tirunelveli, in respect of fishing rights in five tanks within Rayagiri Special Village Panchayat being handed over to Ullar Thalavaipuram Village Panchayat. Relying upon a civil suit decree in respect of the fishing rights, the writ petition was filed by Rayagiri Special Village Panchayat that by delimitation, the Collector has passed the impugned order handing over five tanks to Ullar Thalavaipuram Village Panchayat which is inclusive of fishing rights. The learned Judge while considering Writ Petition No.1931 of 2005 challenging the order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Page No.4 of 8

¶48

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶49

passed by the District Collector found that writ petition is not maintainable since the rights sought already been settled by way of civil court decree and the pendency of an application to condone the delay in challenging the order passed by the Court below debars the writ petitioner from initiating parallel proceedings by way of a writ petition.

¶50

When both the writ petition filed by A.Natchadalingam and

¶51

the writ appeal by Rayagiri Special Village Panchayat came up for consideration, a subsequent development was brought to the notice of this Bench namely, the Government has thought fit that the maintenance of water body must be divested from the local body and to be vested with the Public Works Department. The revenue derived must be shared equally between the Public Works Department and the Ayacutdars identified under the Irrigation Management Act. In the light of the said G.O., this Court finds that nothing survives in the writ petition as well as writ appeal. More particularly, in the writ petition, the administrative discretion on delimiting the boundaries of two village panchayats has been questioned and it being a policy decision of the State, there cannot be any judicial intervention by issuing a Mandamus. On that score also,

¶52

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed besides non representation.

¶53

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

¶54

Page No.5 of 8

¶55

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶56

As far as the writ appeal is concerned, as stated above, in

¶57

view of the subsequent event in passing of the G.O., divesting the rights of the local panchayat over the water body, nothing survives and hence the writ appeal has become infructuous.

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the revenue derived so far from the water body is kept in a deposit and requests the Court to issue proper direction to distribute the fund as per The Tamil Nadu Farmer's Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, shall take note of the request and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶59

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed and Writ Appeal

¶60

is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶61

(G.J., J.) (C.K., J.) 12.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

¶62

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

¶63

Page No.6 of 8

¶64

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶65

¶66

The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Municipality Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶67

The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶68

The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.

¶69

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶70

The President, Ullar Thalavaipuram Village Panchayat, Vasudevanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶71

The Executive Officer, Rayagiri Town Panchayat, Rayagiri, Tirunelveli District.

¶72

The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Vasudevanallur, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶73

The Commissioner, Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union, Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District.

¶74

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

¶75

Page No.7 of 8

¶76

W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 and W.P.No.1456 of 2006

¶77

G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶78

bala

¶79

The Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralgam, Chennai-600 108.

¶80

COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.No.1456 of 2006 and W.A(MD)No.753 of 2011 DATED : 12.02.2024

¶81

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

¶82

Page No.8 of 8

Rayagiri Special Village v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayagiri Special Village 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Thavasankarapandian, Vs Punitha

Fathima Shareefa Vs J.Umar Farook

M.S. Mohamed Younus, Vs S. Usmin

Private Studied Nurses Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Commissioner, Vs M.Kanimozhi Sofia

R.Devarasan Vs the Secretary to the