Allowed

Rukmani v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jul 2024WP(MD)/9326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to relay a village road blocked after a contractor failed to proceed with repairs. The Court directed the respondents to complete the road relaying without delay provided the road does not fall within the Survey Number classified as a waterbody, clarifying the scope of a prior order.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to relay the subject road without further delay, clarifying that prior court orders restricting construction apply only to the specific waterbody in Survey No.724/1.

Rukmani Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR .D.KRISHNAKUMAR , ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

Rukmani

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Tirunelveli District

¶12

2.The Tahsildar Manur Taluk Tirunelveli District

¶13

3.The Block Development Officer Manur Panchayat Union Tirunelveli District

¶14

4.Amirtharaj Contractor Devarkulam Manoor Taluk Tirunelveli District ... Respondents

¶15

____________ Page 1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to relay the existing village road starting from Tirunelveli – Sankarankovil Highway, within a time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murali For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

Prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to relay the existing village road starting from Tirunelveli – Sankarankovil Highway, within a time limit stipulated by this Court.

¶24

2. According to the petitioner, the only access to her village starts from Tirunelveli – Sankarankovil Highway and except the said road, there is no other road access. The said road is in existence from time immemorial. In Survey No.724/1, there is a waterbody, namely, Viruvittankulam, on the southeastern part of the Village. The subject road is in the northern side of the said waterbody. The Government had also put up a parapet wall in the

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶28

northern side of the said waterbody to strengthen the bund of the waterbody. In such circumstances, the Village Panchayat made an attempt to put up a toilet in the middle of the said waterbody. Therefore, a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No.8415 of 2023 came to be filed and this Court, by order dated 09.08.2023 directed the authority concerned not to put up any construction in the waterbody and to remove the construction works already made. Thereafter, the respondents selected the subject road to carry on repair works and the fourth respondent was awarded the contract to relay the road. Based on the said contract, the fourth respondent has stored the rough stones for relaying the road. However, thereafter, he has not proceeded with the work, thereby, the entire stretch of the road became unusable and without any alternative road, the villagers are facing difficulties. Though the petitioner made a representation to the authority concerned in this regard, the efforts were ended in vain. Hence, this writ petition.

¶29

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, would submit that this Court, by order dated 09.08.2023 in W.P.(MD) No.8415 of 2023 has restrained construction activities to be carried on in Survey No.724/1, which is classified as a “Waterbody” and the subject road falls in the said Survey Number and therefore, the work of

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶33

relaying of road has been stopped and if it is ensured that the subject road does not fall in the said Survey Number, there is no other impediment to relay the subject road.

¶34

4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to relay the subject road, if it does not fall under Survey No.724/1, which is classified as a “Waterbody”, without any further delay. It is made clear that the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.8415 of 2023 are applicable only in respect of Survey No.724/1.

¶35

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶36

costs.

¶37

[D.K.K., A.C.J.] [R.V., J.] 19.07.2024

¶38

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

¶39

krk

¶40

____________ Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶43

To:

¶44

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,

¶45

2.The Tahsildar, Manur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶46

3.The Block Development Officer, Manur Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶50

D.KRISHNAKUMAR , A.C.J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶51

krk

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.9326 of 2024

¶53

19.07.2024

¶54

____________ Page 6 of 6

¶55

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

Rukmani v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmani 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvakumar C Vs The State Government

M.Saravanakumar Vs The Commmissionerate of Prohibition and Excise Department

E.S.Sahayam @ E. Iyappan Vs The Director