R.Perumal v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Apr 2025WP/20138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ of mandamus; unauthorized construction near quarry; prohibited distance 300 meters; Rule 36 (A1) (a) and (c) / Rule 36[1(A)(c)] Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959; Rule 19 quarry lease grant; S.F.No.829/5 and S.F.Nos.501/8-502/8, Nathatha Halli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri; removal of unauthorized building; clearance of Director of Geology and Mining; 12-week compliance timeline; Madras High Court WP No. 20138 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: respondents 1 to 5 directed to initiate all appropriate actions to remove the unauthorized constructions, if any, following the prescribed procedure, to be completed within twelve (12) weeks; 6th respondent at liberty to submit any building plan approval in their possession; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs. ¶55-56

R.Perumal Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55-56

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 5 should be restrained from permitting the 6th respondent to use a newly constructed building built without prior permission in S.F.No.829/5, lying within the prohibited distance of 300 meters from the existing leasehold quarry area, for violation of Rule 36 (A1) (a) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959, and to act on the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2024.

¶32

Court's answer

In view of the counter-statement filed by the official respondents, the respondents were directed to initiate all appropriate actions to remove the unauthorized constructions, if any, by following the procedure.

¶48-49

Ratio / Principle

The 6th respondent is at liberty to submit any building plan approval in their possession.

¶52-53

Key takeaways

The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶53-54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus allowed (Madras High Court, order by S.M. Subramaniam J. for the Bench of S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar JJ.). On an inspection-based counter affidavit recording that the 6th respondent had constructed a house within 120 metres of the existing leasehold quarry in Nathatha Halli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri, without prior clearance under Rule 36[1(A)(c)] of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the Court directed respondents 1 to 5 (District Collector, RDO, Deputy Director (Geology and Mines), BDO and Village Panchayat) to initiate all appropriate actions, following the prescribed procedure, to remove the unauthorized constructions in S.F.No.829/5; the 6th respondent was left at liberty to submit any building plan approval in his possession, and the exercise was to be completed within twelve (12) weeks. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

WP No. 20138 of 2024 AND

¶8

WMP NO. 22046 OF 2024

R.Perumal

Petitioner(s)

1.The District Collector Collectorate, Dharmapuri -5 Dharmapuri District

¶13

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmapuri Town, Dharmapuri District

¶14

3.The Deputy Director (Geology and Mines), Collectorate, Dharmapuri -5, Dharmapuri District

¶15

4.The Block Development Officer Nallampalli Panchayat Union, Nallampalli, Dharmapuri District

¶16

5.The Indoor Village Panchayat Rep. By Its President Indoor,

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶19

Nallampalli Village, Dharmapuri District

¶20

6.M. Velu

¶21

Respondent(s)

¶22

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶23

PRAYER

¶24

Directing the respondents 1 to 5 to forbear the 6th respondent from using the newly constructed building built without obtaining any prior permission in S.F. No 829/5, lying within the prohibited distance of 300 meters from the existing lease hold quarry area in S.F.Nos.501/8, 501/9, 501/10, 502/7 and 502/8 Nathatha Halli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District for violation of Rule 36 (A1) (a) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 and take action by considering the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2024.

¶25

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶26

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Shrish For Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondent(s): Mr. E.Veda Bagath Singh SGP For R1, 2, 4 & 5 Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu AGP For R3 Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For R6

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶31

The writ of Mandamus has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to

¶32

restrain the 6th respondent from using the newly constructed building, which was built without obtaining prior permission in S.F.No.829/5, lying within the prohibited distance of 300 meters from the existing leasehold quarry area in S.F.Nos.501/8, 501/9, 501/10, 502/7 and 502/8 of Nathatha Halli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District for violation of Rule 36 (A1) (a) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1959 and to consider the

¶33

petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2024.

¶34

With reference to the allegation that the 6th respondent constructed a building within the prohibited area of quarry operations without obtaining building plan permission, this court directed the authorities to conduct an

¶35

inspection and submit a report.

¶36

The Assistant Director, Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri, conducted

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶39

the inspection and filed counter affidavit. Paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter

¶40

affidavit reads as follows:

¶41

“5. With regard to Para 6 of the affidavit, it is

¶42

submitted that after ascertaining there was no approved habitations or village sites within the radius 300 mts from the quarry site only the quarry lease have been granted under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 Rule 36 [1(A)(c)] states that

¶43

“.... No new layout, building plans falling within 300 meters from any quarry should be given approval by any agency unless prior clearance of the Director of Geology and Mining is obtained. On receipt of proposals for according clearance, the Director of Geology and Mining shall decide upon the continuance or closure, as the case may be, of any quarry which is situated with 300 meters from the new layout, buildings sought for such clearance......”

¶44

6. With regard to Para 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the respondent No.6 Thiru.M.Velu S/o Madhaiyan had constructed a house within 120 mts South East direction from the quarry site by violating without getting prior approval from

¶45

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

¶46

WP No. 20138 of 2024

¶47

the Commissionerate of Geology and Mining, Chennai as per Rule 36[1(A)(c)] of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. For constructing house, no approval / permission obtained from Block Development Officer, Nallampalli and/or Panchayat Secretary, Naththathahalli. The representation of the petitioner Thiru.R.Perumal dated 03.06.2024 the same was also given on 21.06.2024 and it was forwarded vide the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Dharmapuri letter Roc.No.349/2024 (Mines) dated 25.06.2024 to the Block Development Officer, Nallampalli and Panchayat Secretary, Naththathahalli for taking necessary action against the unauthorised construction by Thiru. Velu in S.F.No.829/5 of Naththathahalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk,Dharmapuri District.”

¶48