Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1637
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
N.G. Govindan – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD).No. 13187 of 2014 & M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided On : 18-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Singan, Advocate
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Excavation work – Construction – Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to enter the property of the petitioner in S.F.No.365/1 at Kannanur Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District and undertake any excavation work for the purpose of construction of any sump and overhead tank in the property except by recourse to the suitable provisions of law. – Held, Why Court is extracting this judgment in such detail is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider" – In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. – Some time, court also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom court issue directions. – Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. – All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders".– Writ Petition Dismissed
1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to enter the property of the petitioner in S.F.No.365/1 at Kannanur Village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District and undertake any excavation work for the purpose of construction of any sump and overhead tank in the property except by recourse to the suitable provisions of law.
2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased the property in Kannanur Village in Natham S.F.No.365/1 through the registered sale deed dated 24.12.2011. A portion of the said property in the same survey number has also been purchased in the name of the petitioner's daughter-in-law on the very same date. Even though it is purchased in the name of daughter-in-law, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. He would contend that his earlier vendor namely one N. Mani had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 1997 on the file of the District Muns if Court, Thuraiyur, against the Government for declaration and injunction in respect of the property and obtained a decree in his favour and the appeal preferred by the Government was also dismissed and subsequently, he has purchased the said property under the strength of the Civil Court decree.
3. According to the petitioner, the third respondent herein, namely, the Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board has no legal right to enter the property in question. But they have entered upon the property on 04.08.2014 to have a soil test and dug up pits in several parts of the property in question. He would further contend that earlier he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.10681 of 2014 before this Court to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 01.05.2014. The said Writ Petition came to be dispose of on 08.07.2014 to consider the representation of the petitioner. Prior to that, his predecessor, namely, the said Mani had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2385 of 2009 to issue patta in his name for the property in question. The said Writ Petition was also ordered on 15.04.2009. Even then it was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.
4. According to the petitioner, once it is a Natham land, it does not vest with the Government. But the authorities without following the rules have entered into the property and have started excavation work to construct a sump.
5. The fifth respondent has filed a counter and vacate stay petition. In the counter, it is stated that the land was never in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner or his predecessor in title. Though the land is classified as 'natham' in the up-dating registry, the land in question was classified as 'Village Natham' and further it was classified as 'Government poramboke'. When the petitioner attempted to fence the property on 04.08.2014, the villagers objected to it and a tense situation prevailed over there. Thereafter, the petitioner returned back without even fencing the land. Earlier Writ Petitions were filed only for a Mandamus to consider the representation. As far as the civil suits are concerned, the said Mani had filed the civil suit. In fact, the said suit has nothing to do with the petitioner as the properties was classified as Government poramboke. It is also pertinent to mention that earlier in the years 2009 and 2014, Writ Petitions were filed for grant of patta and the same was considered and rejected by the respondents in the proceedings in Roc.A1.4272/2014 dated 25.08.2014. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved over the settlement under up-dating registry, he has got the liberty to approach District Revenue Officer. Without doing so, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition. Eventually, he seeks for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. In the counter to the vacate stay petition, the petitioner has reiterated the points raised by him in the Writ Petition.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The only point which has been
