Disposed

Ramesh v. The Additional Cheif Secretary

Madras HC21 Feb 2024WP(MD)/3924/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the granting of a mining lease permitting mineral transport through the petitioner's land. The Court accepted the respondent's assurance that an alternative route would be adopted for transportation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's apprehention regarding transport route was accepted; no costs awarded; connected petition closed.

Ramesh Vs The Additional Cheif Secretary — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.3806 of 2024

Ramesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Natural Resources Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶11

2.The Commissioner,

¶12

Geology and Mining Department, Industrial Estate, Guindy,

¶13

Chennai.

¶14

3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶15

4.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner's agricultural land situated

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶21

SF.Nos.270/1, 272/2 of Sivagnanapuram Village of Nilakottai, Dindigul District by permitting stone quarry operation in SF.Nos.263/1 (part 2) and 263/1 (part 3) of Sivagnanapuram Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District by considering petitioner's representation dated 12.01.2024 and 03.02.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Counsel, For Mr.M.Fernand.

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj,

¶24

Spl. Government Pleader.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The writ petition was listed “for admission” on 20.02.2024. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed:-

¶27

“Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

2. The case of the petitioner is that Survey No.270/1 and 272/2 of Sivagnanapuram Village, Nilakottai Taluk are the petitioner's patta land and that the said lands cannot be used for transporting the quarried mineral.

¶29

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

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶32

3. The petitioner's apprehension is that since the quarry in the vicinity had been granted to a third party, pressure may be brought up on the petitioner to part with the petition mentioned land for permitting transportation of the quarried mineral.

¶33

4. The learned Special Government Pleader would point out that FMB has been enclosed at Page No.18 of the typed set of papers. A detail mark indicating the existence of the cart track is seen.

¶34

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the detail mark can only denote the existence of a cart track through which carts can pass through. No lorry transporting the quarried mineral can be allowed to pass through such cart track. According to the learned senior counsel, dimensions of the cart track will have to be finalized. This issue calls for some consideration. The learned Special Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions.

¶35

6. Call this case on 21.02.2024 at 04.00 pm.”

¶36

2.Today ie., 22.02.2024, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the

¶37

learned Special Government Pleader clarified that the transportation of the quarried mineral will not be through the petition mentioned patta lands of the

¶38

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

¶39

3/6

¶40

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶41

writ petitioner and that quarry operator will have to adopt some other alternative route. The submission of the learned Special Government Pleader is placed on record.

¶42

3.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

21.02.2024

¶44

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶45

To:

¶46

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Natural Resources Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶47

2.The Commissioner, Geology and Mining Department, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.

¶48

3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶49

4.The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶50

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

¶51

4/6

¶52

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶54

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶55

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶56

ias

¶57

W.P(MD)No.3924 of 2024

¶58

21.02.2024

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Ramesh v. The Additional Cheif Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. The Additional Cheif Secretary

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

Sahul Hameed Vs Marimuthu

J.Jose Vs R.Praveen Kumar

Senior Divisional Manager Vs Jeganatharaja. Sa

Krishnaradha S Vs The Dean

Ramaraj Vs The Tahsildar

Scism Rural Academy a Matriculation School Vs The Director