Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3089
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
G. Navas Ali & Others
Versus
The District Collector & Others
W.P. Nos.24292 of 2005 and 12852 of 2007 and W.P.M.P. No.26534 of 2005 and
Decided On : 21-09-2007
G. Sankaran, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the public need and the genuineness of the council's resolution and majority vote are crucial factors in determining the validity of land classification for public infrastructure.
Headnote:
Bus Stand - Land Classification - Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, Sections 242(2) and 154(1) - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the classification of land for the construction of a bus stand. The court found that the construction of a bus stand was a basic necessity for the population and that the majority vote by the councilors and the inspection by the Collector supported the classification of the land for the bus stand.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged the order of land classification for the construction of a bus stand, citing lack of necessity and adverse impact on the revenue from the weekly sandai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the construction of a bus stand was a basic necessity for the population and that the majority vote by the councilors and the inspection by the Collector supported the classification of the land for the bus stand.
Issues: The issues involved the necessity of the bus stand, impact on revenue from the weekly sandai, and the validity of the council's resolution and land classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the public need, the genuineness of the majority vote and council's resolution, and the viability of the land for the bus stand construction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and the connected W.P.M.Ps., ruling in favor of the classification of the land for the construction of the bus stand.
These writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioners with the following prayer:-
(i) W.P. No.24292/2005 has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.585/2005/T dated 26. 2005 and quash the same.
(ii) W.P. No.12852/2007 has been filed, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Roc.No.8452/2005/A3 dated 22. 2006, quash the same and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the resolution No.6(37) dated 6. 2004.
2. Affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.
.3. These writ petitions came to be filed before this Court on the following circumstances:-
.The land measuring 3 acres 16 cents in R.S. No.13/1, Belur village came to be sub divided as 13/a, 13/b and 13/d, out of which the land measuring about 28. 10 hectares was classified for the purpose of bus stand. Necessary resolution came to be passed by the Village Town Panchayat i.e. Belur Town Panchayat on 6. 2004. The same was placed before the Tahsildar, who, in turn placed the matter before the District Collector and an order of sub division and classification was ordered. Accordingly, a bus stand actually came into existence. Under such circumstances, these two writ petitions, one challenging the order of the Collector ordering sub division and classification and another to quash the resolution and the order dated 22. 2006 whereby cutting of six tamarind trees found in Survey No.13/1b, have been brought forth by the petitioners.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No.12852 of 2007, learned counsel would submit that there was no resolution passed by the councilors and in the absence of such resolution passed by the council concerned, the construction of bus stand cannot be done. Further, the order of the Tahsildar, placing the matter before the Collector and the subsequent order passed by the Collector have no legal sanction and since invoking the relevant powers, the Collector himself cannot classify and pass orders and hence it has got to be quashed.
.5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.24292 of 2005 would submit that the land measuring 3 acres and 16 cents in survey No.13/1 part, in respect of which alienation was sanctioned by Board of Revenue in favour of Salem Taluk Board with conditions imposed therein, was used for the purpose of weekly sandai only and there is no other purpose for which alienation was made. According to him, though it is true that a resolution was passed on 6. 2004, the same was passed without considering the objections raised by the councilors. He would also submit that once there was no bus stand for the past nearly about 85 years, there is no need for taking part of the land for the purpose of constructing a bus stand.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further added that one of the petitioners is ready and willing to give one acre of land for construction of bus stand. If that could be accepted, the place where weekly sandai has been conducted need not be disturbed. Further, the total extent of land of 3.16 acres itself was not sufficient for weekly sandai. If the land measuring 28. 0 hectares was allotted for the purpose of bus stand, the rest of the property was not definitely be sufficient for the weekly sandai. Further, the main revenue for the Town Panchayat is the fees collected in the weekly sandai. If the bus stand is allowed, it would reduce the revenue to the Panchayat. Learned counsel added further that both the resolution and the order of allotment, allotting the land for the purpose of bus stand, which was passed without any necessity or need, have got to be quashed.
7. In answer to the above, learned counsel for the respondents in short would submit that following the resolution that was passed on 6. 2004 necessary recommend
