Disposed

Satheesh. M v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Apr 2024WP(MD)/496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus to direct the District Collector and others to continue eviction proceedings against a petitioner who had allegedly encroached on government-owned water body land, despite having acquired rights via auction from a temple. The Court observed the land was government poramboke and directed rehabilitation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the second and fifth respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner within three months; order eviction of the premises.

Satheesh. M Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.464 of 2023

M.Satheesh

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

¶11

2.The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, represented by its Joint Commissioner, O/o. the Joint Commissioner,

¶12

Tirunelveli District.

¶13

3.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Public Works Department (PWD), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

4.The Assistant Engineer WRO, Public Works Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶18

5.Arulmigu Muppidathiamman Thirukovil, rep by its Executive Officer, Vadiveeswaram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶19

6.The Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶20

(R6 has been impleaded vide order dated 31.01.2023) ... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to pass orders upon the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner in Na.Ka.No.1925/2022/E3 dated 25.03.2022 and consequently forbear the Respondent No.3 and 4 evicting the petitioner from the Temple Shops in S.No.6/55, 6/54, in Vadiveeswaram North Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders upon the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner

¶25

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

¶26

2/7

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶28

bearing Na.Ka.No.1925/2022/E3 dated 25.03.2022 and to forbear the respondents 3 and 4 from evicting the petitioner from the temple shops in S.Nos.6/55 and 6/54 at Vadiveeswaram North Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶29

2.At the time of admission, this Court had impleaded the Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District as 6^th respondent. The dispute pertains to the right of the petitioner to continue to occupy the land, where the petitioner has put up a shop. The Office of the second respondent had auctioned the rights, in which the petitioner emerged as successful bidder, pursuant to which the petitioner has given a DD for a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- on 24.09.2022 in favour of the fifth respondent.

¶30

3.It appears that the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department, namely the fourth respondent had claimed that the property in question belongs to the fourth respondent and therefore, there cannot be auction of the rights over the property in favour of the petitioner by the second respondent claiming the land as that of the fifth respondent.

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶34

4.It is noticed that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court suo motu impleading the fifth respondent on 31.01.2023, the Tahsildar as sixth respondent has now filed the report. In the report, it has been stated as follows:-

¶35

“I respectfully submit that the land in Re.Sy S-6/60 of Vadiveeswaram north village of Agasteeswaram taluk with an extent of 0.00.79.418 hectares is classified as govt poramboke Madam. Re.Sy S-6/54 of Vadiveeswaram north village of Agasteeswaram taluk with an extent of 0.62.20.321 hectares is classified as govt poramboke vaikal. The above land is in the control of WRD. The writ petitioner has encroached above vaikal poramboke by way of fruit shop.

¶36

I humbly submit that on 09.02.2022 surveyors from Agasteeswaram taluk office made a survey of the encroachments in the vaikal poramboke and form 1 is given to the WRD. On 08.11.2022, 3 encroachments were removed and on 19.12.2022, 25 encroachments were removed.

¶37

I respectfully submit that on 31.01.2023 as per Hon'ble High Court directions notices were issued to all concerned persons and on 14.02.2023 survey was made in the presence of HR and CE and WRD Officials and the writ petitioner. The surveyor has marked the encroached area in the vaikal poramboke. Necessary action will be taken through WRD officials to evict the encroachments.”

¶38

5.Thus, it is clear that the land in question is on a water body. Neither the Public Works Department nor the fifth respondent temple can claim rights over the property. Consequently, the petitioner also cannot claim any right to continue over the property. Therefore, suitable steps will have to be taken for evicting the petitioner.

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶42

6.Considering the fact that the fifth respondent had taken the petitioner as a tenant and accepted the amount pursuant to the bid auction held by the second respondent, I direct the respondents 2 and 5 to suitably rehabilitate the petitioner if any other alternate site is available. It is made clear that the petitioner shall vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

7.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶44

Index : Yes / No 12.04.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To

¶45

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

¶46

2.The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, represented by its Joint Commissioner,

¶47

5/7

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶50

O/o. the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli District.

¶51

3.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Public Works Department (PWD), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶52

4.The Assistant Engineer WRO, Public Works Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶53

5.Arulmigu Muppidathiamman Thirukovil, rep by its Executive Officer, Vadiveeswaram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶54

6.The Tahsildar, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶55

6/7

¶56

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

¶57

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶58

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶59

¶60

W.P.(MD) No.496 of 2023

¶61

12.04.2024

¶62

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

¶63

7/7

Satheesh. M v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh. M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eswaran Vs The Joint Commissioner / Commercial Tax Officer

Dhanalakshmi Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Venkateshwaran.M Vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu

Samundeeswari Vs The Commissioner

Malmurugan S Vs The Joint Commissioner

M.Nithya Vs The Commissioner