Disposed¶64

Manickam v. the District Collector

Madras HC30 Jan 2025WP/2453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus writ re alleged encroachment/road-laying on canal bund in S.Nos.63 and 65, No.60 Omalur Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District; State (per Tahsildar Omalur written instructions dated 29.01.2025, Na.Ka.No.288/2025/A1) states no current road proposal, sanction or funding; Madras HC records that position as answering petitioners' apprehension and disposes of W.P.No.2453 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.2766 of 2025; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None in substance: the WP and W.M.P.No.2766 of 2025 were disposed of by recording the respondents' stated position (no present road proposal, no administrative sanction, no fund allocation) as addressing the petitioners' grievance/apprehension; no mandamus issued; no order as to costs. ¶64

Manickam Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 5 to restore the canal to its original width of 17.6 by removing encroachments allegedly made, under the guise of laying a road, on the canal bund in Survey Nos.63 and 65, No.60 Omalur Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District, pursuant to the petitioners' representation dated 13.12.2024. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

On that recorded position, the captioned WP and the captioned WMP were disposed of without issuance of the mandamus sought, the stated position being treated as addressing the grievance/apprehension projected by the writ petitioners, with no order as to costs.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the emphatic say of the respondents, the Court held that the anxiety/complaint of the writ petitioners stands addressed, and that recording the respondents' stated position vide the written instructions dated 29.01.2025 (Na.Ka.No.288/2025/A1 from R3, with annexures) — namely, that there is no present proposal to lay road qua said land and no administrative sanction or fund allocation — will suffice for giving closure to the captioned main WP.

¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras HC (M.SUNDAR and K.RAJASEKAR, JJ.; order by M.SUNDAR, J.) — W.P.No.2453 of 2025 (with W.M.P.No.2766 of 2025) disposed of on 30.01.2025 at the Admission Board with consent. Prayer: mandamus to R1–R5 to restore the canal to its original width of 17.6 by removing encroachments allegedly made under the guise of laying road on the canal bund in Survey Nos.63 and 65, No.60 Omalur Village/Taluk, Salem District, based on the petitioners' representation dated 13.12.2024. Learned State Counsel, waiving privileged communication immunity, placed before the Court R3 Tahsildar's written instructions dated 29.01.2025 (Na.Ka.No.288/2025/A1) with annexures, stating there is no present proposal of laying road qua said land and neither administrative sanction nor fund allocation has been made. Recording this emphatic position, the Court found the petitioners' anxiety/complaint addressed and disposed of the WP and WMP; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 30.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.2766 of 2025

¶9

Manickam S/o.Govindan

¶10

Ganesan S/o.Erusagoundar

¶11

Murugan S/o.Ayyamuthu ...Petitioners

¶12

¶13

The District Collector Salem District Salem.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶15

The Tahsildar Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶16

Page Nos.1/12

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶19

¶20

The Block Development Officer Omalur Panchayat Union Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶21

The Panchayat President Kottaimariyamman Kovil Village Panchayat Omalur Panchayat Union Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶22

...Respondents

¶23

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to restore the canal in its original width of 17.6 by removing the encroachments under the guise of laying the road on the canal bund in Survey Nos.63 and 65, situate at Kottaimariyamman Kovil, Omalur Village and Taluk, Salem District, based on the representation dated 13.12.2024.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Shakul Hameed representing Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Saravanan Government Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Chezhiyan, Additional Government Pleader for R4 and R5

¶26

Page Nos.2/12

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J. ,]

¶31

Subject matter of captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity} is 'land comprised in S.Nos.63 and 65 in No.60 Omalur Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District' {hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of

¶32

brevity, convenience and clarity}.

¶33

Mr.J.Shakul Hameed, learned counsel representing counsel on

¶34

record for writ petitioners submits that an attempt is being made to encroach upon said land which is a canal bund. Learned counsel submits that such attempt is being made under the guise of laying road.

¶35

Issue notice.

¶36

Mr.T.K.Saravanan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice

¶37

for R1 to R3 and Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for R4 and R5.

¶38

Page Nos.3/12

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶41

Learned State Counsel on the basis of written instructions submits

¶42

that there is no proposal of laying road qua said land for the present and that neither administrative sanction nor fund allocation has been made for laying road.

¶43

Owing to the limited scope of the captioned main WP, main WP is taken up in the Admission Board with the consent of learned State Counsel and learned counsel for writ petitioners.

¶44

Learned State Counsel reiterating the aforementioned submission and waiving privileged communication immunity has placed before us written instructions dated 29.01.2025 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.288/2025/A1 from R3 along with annexures thereat and scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶45

Page Nos.4/12

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶48

Page Nos.5/12

¶49

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

¶50

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶51

Page Nos.6/12

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶54

Page Nos.7/12

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶57

Page Nos.8/12

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶60

Page Nos.9/12

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶63

In the light of emphatic say of respondents, we are of the considered view that the anxiety / compliant of writ petitioners stands addressed and therefore recording stated position of respondents vide aforementioned written instructions will suffice for giving closure to captioned main WP. We do so.

¶64

Captioned WP and captioned WMP thereat disposed of by recording stated position of respondents and writing that the same addresses grievance / apprehension projected by writ petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

(M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 30.01.2025

¶66

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order

¶67

¶68

Page Nos.10/12

¶69

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

¶70

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶71

¶72

The District Collector Salem District Salem.

¶73

The Revenue Divisional Officer Mettur, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶74

The Tahsildar Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶75

The Block Development Officer Omalur Panchayat Union Omalur Taluk Salem District.

¶76

The Panchayat President Kottaimariyamman Kovil Village Panchayat Omalur Panchayat Union Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶77

Page Nos.11/12

¶78

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

¶79

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶80

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶81

¶82

W.P.No.2453 of 2025

¶83

30.01.2025 (2/2)

¶84

Page Nos.12/12

¶85

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

Manickam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manickam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thamarai Vs the District Collector

Thamarai Vs the District Collector

Pushpavalli Suresh Babhu Vs the Government of India

Manickam Vs the District Collector

Raman Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Vinoth Subramaniyan Vs the District Collector