Dismissed

Dr.Ramakrishnan v. the President

Madras HC14 Feb 2025WP/28362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to forward a land conversion application. Court dismissed the petition observing that petitioner failed to obtain necessary prior approval from the Panchayat and concurrence from authorities under relevant Rules and Act, rendering conversion unauthorized.

What did the court decide?

Direction to forward the application under Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules denied; writ petition dismissed as applicant failed to comply with statutory mandates for land conversion.

Dr.Ramakrishnan Vs the President — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

2025:MHC:721

¶2

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 14-02-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶8

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶9

AND

¶10

WMP NO. 30927 OF 2024,WMP NO. 30929 OF 2024

¶11

Dr.Ramakrishnan

¶12

Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

The President

¶15

Manmalai Panchayat Union, Sentharapatti Post, Gingavalli Taluk, Salem District

¶16

2.M.Bhuvaneshwari

¶17

Proprietrix, M/s.Kasren Bio-natural 104/1, Pilankulam Road, Modakupatti, Sendarapatti Post, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem-636 110

¶18

3.The District Collector, Room No.101, First Floor, Collectorate, Salem.636 001.

¶19

4.The Assistant Director Of

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶22

Town Panchayates, Salem Region, Collectorate 2nd Floor, Salem.636 001.

¶23

5.The Assistant Director Of Town And Country Planning, Salem District. (r3 To R5 Are Impleaded As Per Order Dated 04.10.2024 (filed In Memo Usr No.33197/2024) In Wp.28362/2024 By Dkkj And Pbbj)

¶24

6.K.Senthilkumar

¶25

7.Meenakshi 8.V.Avaranam 9.R.Karthick @ Jayaprakash 10.K.Mani 11.S.Sellamuthu 12.A.Suresh [R6 to R12 are impleaded vide order dated 14.02.2025 in WMP.No. 6005/2025 in WP.No.28362/2024]

¶26

Respondent(s)

¶27

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶28

PRAYER

¶29

calling for the records of the first respondent dated 25.4.2024 and quash the same with consequential direction directing the first respondent herein to forward the application of the petitioner as per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use(from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture purposes in Nonplanning Areas)Rules 2017 within the time frame

¶30

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶31

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶34

For Respondent(s):	Mr. B.Sanjay Balachnader For
	Mr.S.Yaswanth For R1
	M/s. S.Senthil, For R2
	Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special
	Government Pleader For R3 To
	R5.
	Ms.A.Pramila For R6 to R12

¶35

ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

The proceedings of the 1st respondent/President, Manmalai Panchayat

¶38

Union, Sentharapatti Post, Gingavalli Taluk, Salem District dated 25.04.2024 is

¶39

sought to be assailed in the present writ petition. Further direction is sought for

¶40

to forward the application submitted by the petitioner to the authority under

¶41

Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non-

¶42

Agriculture Purposes in Non-Planning Areas) Rule, 2017.

¶43

The petitioner states that he is the owner of the land measuring to an

¶44

extent of 6.31 acres situated at Modakkupatti Village and has applied for

¶45

conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes in non-planning

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶48

areas.

¶49

Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended

¶50

that the petitioner has obtained necessary certificates from the competent authorities, including no objection certificates from Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Service and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. However, despite submitting all necessary certificates, no action has been taken to forward the application submitted by the petitioner under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non-Agriculture Purposes in Non-Planning Area) Rule, 2017. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ proceedings.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents

¶52

6 to 12 would submit that the impleaded respondents are neighbouring land

¶53

owners utilising their lands for agricultural purposes. In the event of granting permission for converting agricultural land to non-agricultural land would affect

¶54

the agricultural activities in that locality. Consequently, other agriculturists in

¶55

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

¶56

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶57

that locality have submitted objections to reject the application.

¶58

It is further contended that the petitioner had not obtained prior

¶59

approval from the Panchayat, nor concurrence from the District Collector and

¶60

Director of Town and Country Planning. Therefore, the present writ petition is

¶61

to be rejected.

¶62

Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing

¶63

on behalf of the respondents 3 to 5 would oppose by stating that the procedures

¶64

as contemplated under Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the Government order passed in G.O.Ms.No.79, Housing and Urban Development Department [UD4(3)] dated 04.05.2017, is to

¶65

be followed for the purpose of conversion agricultural land to non-agricultural

¶66

land.

¶67

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Manmalai Panchayat Union

¶68

would submit that no prior approval was granted by the Panchayat Union for

¶69

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

¶70

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶71

establishing a factory on the agricultural land in question. Since the petitioner

¶72

purchased the land for conversion, prior permission from the Panchayat Union

¶73

is mandatory under the Act, but was not obtained. Therefore, the writ petition is

¶74

devoid of merits.

¶75

Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planing Act, 1971

¶76

contemplates procedures to be followed for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land in non planned region. The Rules framed under the Act

¶77

also contemplates procedures.

¶78

The Government order in G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 04.05.2017, was issued

¶79

in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 122, read with Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. These Rules

¶80

prescribe procedures to be followed for the purpose of conversion of

¶81

agricultural to non-agricultural land.

¶82

Pertinently, the petitioner has not obtained any concurrence from the

¶83

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

¶84

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶85

competent authority. The 1st respondent states that no prior approval has been

¶86

granted by the Panchayat Union for conversion of agricultural land. Consequently, any construction on the land is unauthorized and in violation of

¶87

the Act and Rules.

¶88

The conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land must be

¶89

considered in the larger public interest by the competent authorities. Large-scale destruction of agricultural lands will result in adverse consequences. Therefore,

¶90

the Government has contemplated procedures for such conversion, which are to

¶91

be scrupulously followed by the authorities.

¶92

No person shall be allowed to convert agricultural land into non-

¶93

agriculture land without obtaining all necessary permission from the competent

¶94

authorities, in consonance with Section 47A of Town and Country Planning Act

¶95

and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶96

In the present case, the petitioner has not obtained all necessary

¶97

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

¶98

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶99

permissions, concurrences and complied with other requirements as

¶100

contemplated under Rules. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the

¶101

relief as such sought for in the present writ proceeding. However, it is made

¶102

clear that conversion cannot be allowed without complying with the statutory requirements.

¶103

With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶104

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶105

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(K.RAJASEKAR J.)

14-02-2025

(1/2)

Jeni

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

¶110

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

¶111

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶112

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶113

¶114

1.The President Manmalai Panchayat Union, Sentharapatti Post, Gingavalli Taluk,Salem District

¶115

2.M.Bhuvaneshwari Proprietrix, M/s.Kasren Bio-natural 104/1, Pilankulam Road, Modakupatti, Sendarapatti Post, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem-636 110

¶116

3.The District Collector, Room No.101, First Floor, Collectorate, Salem.636 001.

¶117

4.The Assistant Director Of Town Panchayates, Salem Region, Collectorate 2nd Floor, Salem.636 001.

¶118

5.The Assistant Director Of

¶119

Town And Country Planning, Salem District. (r3 To R5 Are Impleaded As Per Order Dated 04.10.2024 (filed In Memo Usr No.33197/2024) In Wp.28362/2024 By Dkkj And Pbbj)

¶120

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

¶121

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶122

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND

K.RAJASEKAR J.

Jeni

WP No. 28362 of 2024

¶127

14-02-2025 (1/2)

¶128

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

Dr.Ramakrishnan v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ramakrishnan v. the President

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

Arumugam @ Aarusamy Vs the District Collector

A. Elumalai Vs a.Munusamy

R.K.Ramesh Vs Rupa Rajesh

The State Tamil Nadu Vs Geetha G Subramaniam

J. Padmavathi Vs M.P. Ayyappan

V.Gopinath Vs Dharani